PDA

View Full Version : The Three GM Types



bloodtide
2011-01-20, 11:56 PM
I see three types of GMs:

1.The Master This type of GM is in absolute unilateral control of the game. The players, by virtue of sitting down to play the game, are agreeing to the GM's control of the game. What the GM says is both law and reality of the game. Neither the players views nor the game rules matter, only what the GM says matters. The published game rules here are just a vague guideline to help the GM decide things. This type of game never has any type of 'power' problems. Should something happen, the Gm can simply say 'no' or 'this is what happens'. Should a player attempt to 'break' any rule, the GM can simply say that it does not happen.

2.The Buddy GM This type of GM is just one of the people playing the game. Everyone who sits down to play the game is equal. In this game, a player can pull out a book and say 'page 33 says this' and the GM will simply nod and say: "yup, that is what the page says''. This type of GM follows the rules as if they are required to play the game. Even to the point of typos, mistakes and just plain crazy stuff. In this game, should something happen to disrupt the game, the Gm just sits back and watches.

3.The Ego Fuel GM This type of GM is just there to make the players feel good. Even worse then the Buddy GM, this the Ego Fuel is just there to praise the players. This GM sits back while the players do whatever they want, and then they describe what happens in the game. Then the players just sit happily and let the GM tell them how great and cool their characters are in the game.



I've watched hundreds of games over the years, and GMs fall into these three types. Most GMs, if asked what type they are of the three would say 'none'. But if you watch them in the game, 'none' is type '2'. Type two is by far the most common type. The evidence of this easy to see. A good example is to simply look at any D&D boards. You will see post after post from GM's who have problems with their game, what to know how or why a rule works or post a 'fix' for broken things.

It's most striking to ask any Old School player(who has not been corrupted my modern gamers) about any of the GMs posts. The player will have the simple question: "Why does the GM not just say what is what?'' For example:You can easily find a ''Help My players are abusing Gate to get wishes'' post. The Old School gamer would just say ''that does not work''.


I'm a type 1 GM myself, and I never, ever, have any problems in my games. People agree to have fun together and play the game. It's much more fun to sit down and have a game where the GM is Master. Should a player even attempt to do anything to upset or disrupt the game, the GM can simply say it does not happen.

So for example, if in my game, a player said ''my character casts the spell gate and calls a Epic Elemental''; I simply say ''the gate fails to form'' and we just keep on playing and having fun.


It's important to be clear, the master is not a tyrant. The Master GM is not there to somehow make the players slaves to their wishes and go off on a power trip. It's just about control and fun for everyone.

Endarire
2011-01-21, 12:00 AM
I feel like I'm a 1.5. I'll change the rules for the sake of all, but I prefer to codify them first. That way, people can fairly plan around them.

Frog Dragon
2011-01-21, 12:02 AM
There seems to be a sample size bias here. Only those with problems with player power and abuses post here about it. No one comes to post "Hey! My players are great and abuse nothing!" I suspect type 2 is much rarer than you say, and most of them have at least traits of the nro 1.

WarKitty
2011-01-21, 12:08 AM
Actually, my players generally have to be encouraged to take advantage of the abilities the rules explicitly give them. Because of this, I tend to give them what they ask for most of the time, because there's no real reason to say no even if it's not explicitly RAW or RAI. They need power-ups just to handle standard CR melee monsters.

valadil
2011-01-21, 12:14 AM
Contrary to The Ego GM, there's also The Nemesis. He runs games just to beat on players and prove to them what a better D&D player he is.

bloodtide
2011-01-21, 12:17 AM
There seems to be a sample size bias here.


Of course. I'm a Type 1, as I said.


I just see game after game, where the GM is a type 2 or 3, and they have endless problems.

The event that inspired this post happened last weekend. I watched a group of gamers playing 3E Oriental Adventures. In the first printing of that book, the ninja-to has a critical threat range of 19-29, an obvious typo. Yet I watched the GM look this up in the book and say 'Ok, then any hit of 19 to 29 is a critical threat for a ninja-to'. As you might have guessed, the players then scrambled to get and use ninja-tos. And this poor Gm just sat there as time after time when a player would roll a 22, 23, or 24 and do crit damage time after time after time. We wondered why he did not simply say 'that does not work, the crit range is 19-20'.

GoodbyeSoberDay
2011-01-21, 12:20 AM
"Buddy" implies #3. I'd say #2 is more like a "Referee."


I'm a type 1 GM myself, and I never, ever, have any problems in my games. People agree to have fun together and play the game. It's much more fun to sit down and have a game where the GM is Master. Should a player even attempt to do anything to upset or disrupt the game, the GM can simply say it does not happen.Your type of game might be fun for you, but I doubt I'd have fun in your game. That's not a knock on you; you probably wouldn't have fun in a game I ran, either. It's a matter of taste. Buddies or even Ego Fuelers can run great games.

Edit: Also, a DM who corrects obvious typos is not the same as a DM who says "that simply doesn't work" mid-game.

Skjaldbakka
2011-01-21, 12:25 AM
This seems a lot like "you should all run games the way I do, I have noticed these other two styles of DMing, and they are inferior to mine."

We don't need your value judgements or your boxes or your bias. Trying to create categories and fit everyone into one of them is folly.

A spectrum works better, and even then, you'd need several. How literally do you interpret the rules? Do you railroad plots or do you run a sandbox? Do you prefer heroic or villainous PCs and plots? etc, etc, etc.

Pink
2011-01-21, 12:27 AM
Of course. I'm a Type 1, as I said.


I just see game after game, where the GM is a type 2 or 3, and they have endless problems.

The event that inspired this post happened last weekend. I watched a group of gamers playing 3E Oriental Adventures. In the first printing of that book, the ninja-to has a critical threat range of 19-29, an obvious typo. Yet I watched the GM look this up in the book and say 'Ok, then any hit of 19 to 29 is a critical threat for a ninja-to'. As you might have guessed, the players then scrambled to get and use ninja-tos. And this poor Gm just sat there as time after time when a player would roll a 22, 23, or 24 and do crit damage time after time after time. We wondered why he did not simply say 'that does not work, the crit range is 19-20'.

How the heck are you rolling 21-29 on a 20 sided die? Typo or not, crit threats result on the natural roll of that number, not after adding bonuses.

Anyway, I...don't like this list. I'm not saying there's anything particularly wrong about it, but basing types of DMs by how strictly they follow printed rules, to how much they house rule is far from being a definitive stance. And for that matter, I can see a person switching through both roles during one sitting of DnD.

Players should be able to do quite a bit within the game and have fun doing so. Heroes and such are the movers and shakers of campaign worlds usually.

That being said, when everyone sits down together and decides on a rules system to play with, that rule system should be honoured. Players should expect that a spell or mechanic in the system you've agreed upon will work the same way it has from session to session.

But again, sometimes (heck, this usually happens at least once a night), there can be a rules dispute, and the DM has to be arbiter of the rules, laying the law and such. Sometimes the players will want to do things not specifically in the rules and the DM will have to figure out a way to accomplish it.

This list seems to lack the aspects of the DM concerning world creation, combat vs. roleplaying, opponent vs. member of the group, etc etc, which can make up so many DM threads on these boards.

Edit: On the topic of Good/Bad DMing or doing it right/wrong/better/worse, here's my criteria. Are the players having fun? Are you having fun? Then you're doing fine and don't let anyone else tell you otherwise.

_Zoot_
2011-01-21, 12:30 AM
I would have to say I'm closest to type 1, but that is only because I'm not one to let little things such as 'rules' get in the way of my story.

But while I'm here I really don't like this list, it seems far to narrow, and while I don't doubt that it would be hard to find a bigger list that could include every one, this one doesn't allow for any middle ground at all.

WarKitty
2011-01-21, 12:33 AM
What belies this is that most of the power problems I've had have been accidental. It's not fair to the player who spent his time carefully building the size of his fireball for the maximum pyro joy "Sorry, your spell fails" because he's outdoing someone else or killing monsters to fast or whatever. It's not half as hard as most people think to accidentally break the system - I've done it with a controller character. I built a character because the controller archetype appeals to me and I happen to like druid fluff. Not every relatively overpowered character is the result of intentional powergaming.

bloodtide
2011-01-21, 12:37 AM
How the heck are you rolling 21-29 on a 20 sided die? Typo or not, crit threats result on the natural roll of that number, not after adding bonuses.


Well, they would roll a 17 on the d20, add 4 from bonuses (Bab,strength, etc.) and get 21. And that would be a crit for them. We did mention that crits don't work that way..but they just said it was a 'special crit' as the book does say crit range of 19-29.

GoodbyeSoberDay
2011-01-21, 12:41 AM
Well, they would roll a 17 on the d20, add 4 from bonuses (Bab,strength, etc.) and get 21. And that would be a crit for them. We did mention that crits don't work that way..but they just said it was a 'special crit' as the book does say crit range of 19-29.That is "ego fuel" territory. A strictly type 2 DM would shrug and say "good luck rolling a natural 29 on your 20 sider."

Tvtyrant
2011-01-21, 12:43 AM
The language here is completely unequal; your noticing one type of the numerous types of problems that come up on these forums, much less D&D in total. Go through the last three months for threads that say "My GM/DM hates me!" and you will find a slew of type 1 Dungeon Masters who have ruined someone's game. Yes, there are distinctions between rule heavy versus ruling have DMing, but the one is not better then the other. They are simply different, with different abuses and issues.

Mecharious
2011-01-21, 12:44 AM
*Rolls a 20*

"What's your total?"
"30"
"Sorry, no crit."

Sillycomic
2011-01-21, 12:53 AM
I really don't see any difference between type 2 and type 3. It seems like a GM could easily be both.

Type 2 follows the rules to a fault... even the bad ones. Type 3 makes you feel like your character is a special snowflake. Actually, there's no real indication of whether 3 even follows the rules strictly or not.

Technically type 3 could be the same as type 1 as well. Just instead of saying, "no you can't" to rule abuses, a type 3 will say, "yes you can" to stuff that really isn't even in the rules but seems like an awesome thing to do. It is still the GM putting his own foot down over the rules to describe what does or doesn't happen.

So, unless you redefine type 3 better, I think you only really have 2 types of GM's here.

Plus, none of your types really take into account all the other things that a GM does. These types of GM seem to only apply to "How a GM interprets the rules."

In that camp, I would say you still need to define type 3 better.

How a GM interprets any given rule.

Type 1: If the rule breaks the game, it's not happening.
Type 2: If it says so in a book, it's allowed.
Type 3... (which still could be either 1 or 2) Well, what are you trying to do? Capture a large dragon using a net? Well, there's rules for grappling and CR levels I need to look at... oh screw it. You're awesome, you capture a dragon and now it's your friend. You fly off into the clouds and are showered with lewts and maidens!

bloodtide
2011-01-21, 12:54 AM
The language here is completely unequal; your noticing one type of the numerous types of problems that come up on these forums, much less D&D in total. Go through the last three months for threads that say "My GM/DM hates me!" and you will find a slew of type 1 Dungeon Masters who have ruined someone's game. Yes, there are distinctions between rule heavy versus ruling have DMing, but the one is not better then the other. They are simply different, with different abuses and issues.

Of course, any GM can be a tyrant and 'hate' their players.

I'm talking about the Buddy DM, who sees the rules as a law.

The players get gate...summon epic stuff..and the GM sits there as they destroy city after city. After the game he comes over, nearly in tears, talking about the players ruining his game. We would say, 'why not just say the gate did not work'. He'd look shocked and say 'I can't do that..what they did was OK by the rules'.

Tvtyrant
2011-01-21, 01:03 AM
Of course, any GM can be a tyrant and 'hate' their players.

I'm talking about the Buddy DM, who sees the rules as a law.

The players get gate...summon epic stuff..and the GM sits there as they destroy city after city. After the game he comes over, nearly in tears, talking about the players ruining his game. We would say, 'why not just say the gate did not work'. He'd look shocked and say 'I can't do that..what they did was OK by the rules'.

Yes, that is an issue. It is also not what you said. You said "I'm a type 1 GM myself, and I never, ever, have any problems in my games. People agree to have fun together and play the game." Which implies with your later comments that the game runs smoothly because your arbitrary with your decisions, which isn't the case. The game runs smoothly because "People agree to have fun together and play the game." If that statement is the reason then what type of GM you are wouldn't matter.

The tyrannical GM is much more likely to be a type 1 then the others, and it is not "more fun" to play with them.

unimaginable
2011-01-21, 01:04 AM
I'm all three, but especially 1 and 3. My word is the law, but I use it to make things as awesome as I can and to help each player to feel awesome. I let them come up with what they want to have happen, and then decide how I want that to actually unfold.

WarKitty
2011-01-21, 01:04 AM
I really don't see any difference between type 2 and type 3. It seems like a GM could easily be both.

Type 2 follows the rules to a fault... even the bad ones. Type 3 makes you feel like your character is a special snowflake. Actually, there's no real indication of whether 3 even follows the rules strictly or not.

Technically type 3 could be the same as type 1 as well. Just instead of saying, "no you can't" to rule abuses, a type 3 will say, "yes you can" to stuff that really isn't even in the rules but seems like an awesome thing to do. It is still the GM putting his own foot down over the rules to describe what does or doesn't happen.

So, unless you redefine type 3 better, I think you only really have 2 types of GM's here.

Plus, none of your types really take into account all the other things that a GM does. These types of GM seem to only apply to "How a GM interprets the rules."

In that camp, I would say you still need to define type 3 better.

How a GM interprets any given rule.

Type 1: If the rule breaks the game, it's not happening.
Type 2: If it says so in a book, it's allowed.
Type 3... (which still could be either 1 or 2) Well, what are you trying to do? Capture a large dragon using a net? Well, there's rules for grappling and CR levels I need to look at... oh screw it. You're awesome, you capture a dragon and now it's your friend. You fly off into the clouds and are showered with lewts and maidens!

See, a good DM imo would go more like this:

You're trying to capture a large dragon using a net? Well, you'll need a special net for this. You'll need to go talk to the dwarves that live up in Dorfland and try to get them to custom make one for you. They'll probably have some work for you in the meantime. When it's finished, you have to find the dragon, net and somehow subdue it, then convince it to be your friend. But if you can pull that off, congrats you have a dragon!

Note: The process of obtaining the net and finding the dragon will occupy the player until he is of sufficient level to have such a mount.

GoodbyeSoberDay
2011-01-21, 01:07 AM
Of course, any GM can be a tyrant and 'hate' their players.

I'm talking about the Buddy DM, who sees the rules as a law.

The players get gate...summon epic stuff..and the GM sits there as they destroy city after city. After the game he comes over, nearly in tears, talking about the players ruining his game. We would say, 'why not just say the gate did not work'. He'd look shocked and say 'I can't do that..what they did was OK by the rules'.In what thread is this happening? I can't say I see too many complaints of in-game gate abuse while perusing these forums. I see a few 'certain character is too OP, how should I handle it?' questions, where house-ruling is usually one of the first options considered, and sometimes I see a few 'player is frustrated that I banned [OP thing],' which is generally presented as a Type 1 DM having frictions with a powergamer.

Most often I see "The DM hates me/is out to kill me/bans ToB and Psionics for no reason" posts, so yeah.

Sir_Chivalry
2011-01-21, 01:18 AM
Ya, got to say I see some serious bias here towards restrictive DMing.


I'm a type 12 GM myself, and I never, ever, have any problems in my games. People agree to have fun together and play the game. It's much more fun to sit down and have a game where the GM is Master a fellow player in the game. Should a player even attempt to do anything to upset or disrupt the game, the GM can simply say it does not happen, but a good DM can adapt to problems instead of being disproportionately reactionary.

Fixed that for you. Funny how that works eh?:smallbiggrin:

Also, type 3 isn't a type of DM, it's a strawman.

Sillycomic
2011-01-21, 01:18 AM
See, a good DM imo would go more like this:

You're trying to capture a large dragon using a net? Well, you'll need a special net for this. You'll need to go talk to the dwarves that live up in Dorfland and try to get them to custom make one for you. They'll probably have some work for you in the meantime. When it's finished, you have to find the dragon, net and somehow subdue it, then convince it to be your friend. But if you can pull that off, congrats you have a dragon!

Note: The process of obtaining the net and finding the dragon will occupy the player until he is of sufficient level to have such a mount.

See, that's exactly my point. This is obviously a type 3 gm... but it could also be either a type 1 or a type 2. Type 1 could create the net and the obstacles that will let the player have this dragon mount if he so wished.

Type 2 could scour over rulebooks to make sure it's ok, and then let you do the same thing.

If anything you need a type 4 that says GM versus player. The players are not special snowflakes and the GM is trying to do everything he can to stomp them down. At least then you have 2 opposites.

Type 1 and type 2 are how to interpret the rules.

Type 1: There are rules, but if they don't make sense or if you abuse anything it's not happening.

Type 2: There are rules. If you can find it in a book, it's allowed.

Type A and B are how your world interacts with the players.

Type A:The world is nice and clean and gives you free puppies

Type B: The world is an intolerable death machine that will grind you down and spit you out.

As a GM, you are one of the first set and one of the second set. A 1, A GM will make up rules on the fly, but will do it mostly cause he wants your character to do cool things.

A type 2, B GM will follow the rules no matter what, but he will use this to the best of his ability to ruin your life. Make sure to write down how many rations you have, how many arrows you used... and always ALWAYS bring 3 extra spell component pouches with you when you play with this GM.

Of course these are the extremes of each side. I would imagine it's more like a sliding scale when it comes to the 4 types. You are more A or B.. or more type 1 than 2.

GoodbyeSoberDay
2011-01-21, 01:23 AM
Ya, got to say I see some serious bias here towards restrictive DMing.



Fixed that for you. Funny how that works eh?:smallbiggrin:

Also, type 3 isn't a type of DM, it's a strawman.It's a strawman, but it *is* a (rare) type of GM, known previously as a Monty Haul GM.

Heliomance
2011-01-21, 01:37 AM
"None" is not number 2. I definitely don't fall perfectly into any of them. In my games, there are rules of the game. We follow the rules. When the rules are obviously wrong (typos) or make the game less fun, an alternative is found, but mostly what the rules say goes. If you want to do something awesome, I'll find a way within the rules for you to do it. If you try to abuse the rules to break the game to the point of unfunness, though, I'm happy to say no.

Zaydos
2011-01-21, 01:42 AM
Personally as a DM I've had a few 'power' problems. I've had a player who tried to make power problems, but it was defused by pointing out that the PHB said it didn't work that way. My only actual 'power' problems though didn't come from "OMG I'm summoning CR 35 elementals" it was the much more common problem of "I have 9 players of varying skill levels playing and their characters range from completely incapable for their level to decently well built." I could have ruled 0 it and given the weaker players power boosts, which actually some of the variant rules from UA that were stated to be in use beforehand were given them a power boost, or I could have just looked at their characters and designed adventures where they could function and not cause people's feelings to get hurt with arbitrary rulings. The only one that was a recurring problem was the person trying to build a batman style wizard without Glitterdust, Grease, or Web at fairly low levels (he did describe it as a batman wizard, and perused enough forums to know and inquire about some game breakers; noting they were game breakers first) so I assume he actually knew what he was talking about but... his spell selection was strange at best with nothing from the usual batman wizard guides.

I have never had to house rule something in the middle of a session because it was a game breaker. I've had to house rule things because there weren't rules in place, and I do have a list of house rules, and I ban Polymorph Any Object (and a handful of other spells) because... well mostly it's a whole bunch of rule problems. I also have a pre-standing rule that if you attack a creature within a summoning circle in any way your binding ends immediately and it escapes the circle (since I see that as an abuse of the rules). I have a generally standing rule that if it's not core it's best to ask first, that non-core things from the Completes (excepting Initiate of the Sevenfold Veil) are pretty much allowed, but ask about spells that aren't in the spell compendium and anything not from Core/Completes/Spell Compendium ask about first as my knowledge becomes more and more vague.

So tell me which of your types I'd fit into.

Sillycomic
2011-01-21, 02:50 AM
Well, according to my new system you are a mild 1 A type. You like most of the rules but will homebrew anything broken, and you want to make sure all of your players have fun and their characters feel special and useful.

Darklord Bright
2011-01-21, 03:21 AM
Where I most disagree with the OP is where it assumes type 2 and 3 are bad, even stating that 3 is "worse" than 2. It also assumes that a "Buddy" DM wouldn't step in to settle a dispute amongst friends to keep drama from escalating. Always. Then goes on to say that if you say you are not any of these types you are type 2, no exceptions.

Heliomance
2011-01-21, 03:24 AM
ITT: The OP posits three stereotypical strawman DMing styles, then claims that these apply to all DMs without exception. Further pre-emptively argues that anyone arguing that it doesn't cover all situations automatically falls into one of the three categories.

Cerlis
2011-01-21, 03:31 AM
{Scrubbed}

BiblioRook
2011-01-21, 03:48 AM
Contrary to The Ego GM, there's also The Nemesis. He runs games just to beat on players and prove to them what a better D&D player he is.

Actually I would imagine 'The Nemesis' would be more the coin-flip of 'The Buddy', much like Type 1 kinda mirrors Type 3.

Where The Buddy would say 'It's in the rules, so you can do it', The Nemesis would say 'It's in the rules, so I can do it'.

Dingle
2011-01-21, 05:22 AM
The biggest problem with your categorisation is not "can all GMs be categorised by this system?"

The biggest problem is "(assuming they can be categorised)Is it useful in any way?"

There are an insanely huge number* of ways to categorise GMs, and that's just ones that can categorise everyone.

I could propose the categories:
type 1: GMs over 6 feet tall
type 2: GMs between 5 and 6 feet tall (inclusive)
type 3: GMs under 5 feet tall

noone could claim that I haven't categorised all GMs (if I specified a measuring system)
Yet this categorisation isn't very useful (unless you want to play in a very small room)

The question remains:
What can you do with your categorisation?
Is it Useful?


*

Assuming n GMs in the world
We put them into k categories
each gm could go into any category
k choices for GM1 * k choices for GM2 * ......... * k choices for GMn
giving k*k*k*k*.....*k = k^n categories
we could have chosen any number of categories from 1 to n
1^n + 2^n + 3^n + .... +n-1^n + n^n
giving SUM {over k, from 1 to n} (k^n)

Kurald Galain
2011-01-21, 05:35 AM
I see three types of GMs:

Oh, I'm sure there's more types, such as the GM who is type-1 to most of the table but type-3 to his girlfriend.

Anyway, your post seems to imply that there is a clear "best" type of GM, and I'm sure people would disagree with your opinion thereof.

The underlying question seems to be: When would a particular DM break the rules?

Never; what is RAW, goes.
When they would ruin the plot
When they would interfere with the drama
When they would ruin verisimilitude
When they would break game balance
For the sake of not killing the PCs
For the sake of killing the PCs

EccentricCircle
2011-01-21, 05:57 AM
I agree that this system is a start but that it doesn't reprosent reality. it would be very hard to come up with a classification system that would always fit everyone as it is ultimately a spectrum between one extreme and another with most people falling somewhere in between.

the system presented above is also very one dimensional, (and I mean that in the mathematical sense rather than a derogatory one)
in fact as noted in a previous post there are (at least) two different factors, adherance ot the rules and friendlyness to the players.

luckly D&D has already equipt us to deal with a situation like this.

It's Alignment.

a Lawful DM follows the rules to the Letter
a Chaotic DM houserules and invokes Rule Zero to keep the game from getting bogged down in Minutiae

a Good DM is on the players side
an Evil DM is counting their PC kills

obviously most DM's will be some veriant of Neutral.

there are other issues such as railroading vs sandboxing which could kind of be considered to come under Law vs Chaos but not quite. also the use of Good and Evil isn't perjorative. an "Evil DM" can still run a very good game, and a "Good DM" isn't neccersarly going to be a Good DM

under this system I am a Chaotic Neutral DM tending towards Chaotic Good.

my main concern is building the story so I'm never really out to kill the characters. this isn't to say that I don't write tough encounters sometimes. but party kills are not what i'm trying to achieve.
I have a bad memory for rules lore so that I am happy to improvise and gloss over details rather than looking through books or arguing with rules lawyers for the definitive rules as written answer.
(of course my players may disagree with this characterisation of my alignment and as many of them read this board they can...)

Godskook
2011-01-21, 06:09 AM
I see three types of GMs:

You are missing at least one, and probably more, cause I *KNOW* I'm not in this list.


1.The Master This type of GM is in absolute unilateral control of the game. The players, by virtue of sitting down to play the game, are agreeing to the GM's control of the game. What the GM says is both law and reality of the game. Neither the players views nor the game rules matter, only what the GM says matters. The published game rules here are just a vague guideline to help the GM decide things. This type of game never has any type of 'power' problems. Should something happen, the Gm can simply say 'no' or 'this is what happens'. Should a player attempt to 'break' any rule, the GM can simply say that it does not happen.

Heh, no. I'm not that big of a control freak. My players have options, and I adhere too closely to the rules. I'm simply not the type of guy that enjoys fiating through a game. I want to actually be challenged by players, and to do that, I need to submit, roughly, to a similar ruleset as them.


2.The Buddy GM This type of GM is just one of the people playing the game. Everyone who sits down to play the game is equal. In this game, a player can pull out a book and say 'page 33 says this' and the GM will simply nod and say: "yup, that is what the page says''. This type of GM follows the rules as if they are required to play the game. Even to the point of typos, mistakes and just plain crazy stuff. In this game, should something happen to disrupt the game, the Gm just sits back and watches.

My current "watch list" includes the entire Test of Spite ruleset. I use a fair amount of homebrew. There are things that are banned, and others that are houseruled. However, I'm closest to this type if any, but no way is this my 'type'.


3.The Ego Fuel GM This type of GM is just there to make the players feel good. Even worse then the Buddy GM, this the Ego Fuel is just there to praise the players. This GM sits back while the players do whatever they want, and then they describe what happens in the game. Then the players just sit happily and let the GM tell them how great and cool their characters are in the game.

No, just no. There are moments, in-game, when I specifically stroke my PCs' egos, but as a general rule, no. My NPCs have insulted my PCs in ways that I as a person would otherwise be ashamed to have leave my mouth.

Warlawk
2011-01-21, 07:04 AM
{Scrubbed}

Comet
2011-01-21, 07:10 AM
Those classes really don't cover every GM. Furthermore, and I might just be going crazy here but I need to say it, the wording on these three classes seems to indicate pretty clearly that the OP has arranged them in a descending order of superiority, with The Master at the top and the Ego Fuel dude at the bottom. I might be seeing bias where there is none, but there.

Anyway, I'd say I'm a Buddy GM. I don't get off from ruling over my players and my players don't look up to me as some sort of god of their imaginary land. Everyone knows that it's just a story built inside everyone's heads and as such everyone can influence it and take part in the creation, even if the GM happens to hold most of the large-scale strings.
The kicker? I don't follow the rules very well, which seems to automatically disqualify me from the Buddy class. I like to play rules-light (sometimes even dice-free) games and even then rules tend to get disregarded if they are too much of a bother to learn. I just need clear, dramatic ways to give a random edge to conflicts and then we're good to go. We learn more as we play.

More importantly, I kind of see myself changing class between games. Some games feel better when you're following the rules to the letter, some games are meant to be enjoyed by giving your players all the freedom in the world. Different themes and different games require different methods and such.

Sipex
2011-01-21, 10:45 AM
The biggest problem with your categorisation is not "can all GMs be categorised by this system?"

The biggest problem is "(assuming they can be categorised)Is it useful in any way?"

There are an insanely huge number* of ways to categorise GMs, and that's just ones that can categorise everyone.

I could propose the categories:
type 1: GMs over 6 feet tall
type 2: GMs between 5 and 6 feet tall (inclusive)
type 3: GMs under 5 feet tall



I'm a type 2 DM.

Is that good?

Also, agreed with the general consensus here, original topic lumps the DMs into three groups which can't possibly define them all. In addition it does seem biased towards option 1.

The Glyphstone
2011-01-21, 10:52 AM
The third-to-last GM I played under was absolutely a 'Master', or more accurate a tyrant. He followed the rules to the book, except when he didn't, and the times he didn't usually corresponded directly to when the players were going to succeed at something. Houserules (made up on the spot,and forgotten later when they would be beneficial to the players) and Rule Zero were applied liberally whenever something got in the way of his carefully crafted railroad plot. I have since flatly refused to play in any game he runs, in any system, it was that painful and poisonous.

The point being...he was the exact opposite of a type 3, and no way fit a Type 2. So, either he was a Type 1 (making Type 1's the worst form of GM in existence), or GMs can't be neatly categorized into these three categories. I'm going to go with the second option, mainly because quality GMs who just keep a tight grip on their game don't deserve to be lumped in with him.

bokodasu
2011-01-21, 11:10 AM
a Lawful DM follows the rules to the Letter
a Chaotic DM houserules and invokes Rule Zero to keep the game from getting bogged down in Minutiae

a Good DM is on the players side
an Evil DM is counting their PC kills

Yeah, I like this one better. I don't think I've played with any DMs who fit in the OP's categories, and I don't think I fit into any of them either. (And I'm pretty sure I count as old-school. oD&D is my D&D.)

But I'm not sure a "good" DM should necessarily be on the players' side. Maybe on the side of "good" players? (Not good characters, players.) Or on the side of the story? (Although that's getting back into judgy territory.) On the side of a good time being had by all?

Corronchilejano
2011-01-21, 11:17 AM
Yeah, I like this one better. I don't think I've played with any DMs who fit in the OP's categories, and I don't think I fit into any of them either. (And I'm pretty sure I count as old-school. oD&D is my D&D.)

But I'm not sure a "good" DM should necessarily be on the players' side. Maybe on the side of "good" players? (Not good characters, players.) Or on the side of the story? (Although that's getting back into judgy territory.) On the side of a good time being had by all?

I think player's side means "good time" for them. Some of the funnest campaings are for evil characters slauhgtering/pillaging/raping their way to power.

Iceforge
2011-01-21, 11:37 AM
{Scrubbed}

Typewriter
2011-01-21, 11:40 AM
After reading the initial post and skimming over the replies I'm going to just go ahead and toss my lot in with the people who think these three categories are insulting attempts at categorizing people who play in ways you don't like.

grimbold
2011-01-21, 11:45 AM
ima type 1 i think
my current dm is type 2

randomhero00
2011-01-21, 11:54 AM
OP those feel extremely limiting. I'm not anyone of those. I'm closest to 2 I suppose. But really a bit of 1 too. Cause story and rule of cool trump rules.

Kaiser Omnik
2011-01-21, 12:01 PM
You saying Type 1 isn't a tyrant doesn't make it less likely that some (or even many) type 1 are tyrants. What you're basically saying is: there are 3 types of GMs, only the 1st really works, and because it's the way I play and my players have fun it's obviously the best. I think you are confusing your own experience for the experience of a whole generation of gamers. And the terms "corrupted by modern gamers" go a long way to show your bias. How are we supposed to argue with you, o all mighty Master of the Game?

claricorp
2011-01-21, 12:06 PM
I am more of a type 1.75 I go along with the players if they want to do something a little fun (like roll a blighter and do shenanagins with shapeshifting, reduce person and blightfire) however as soon as someone is obviously trying to break stuff, I bring down the hammer and say no.

I also happen to have a player in the group who can get pretty emotional so every once in awhile I will have to go a little type 3 for a bit.

I think what your describing here are really the extremes of GMs. I kind of find it akin to saying there is communism and fascism without any shades of grey.

Zaydos
2011-01-21, 01:58 PM
Well I was hoping to see if the OP would respond to my question of what type I am. If I really am Type 1 the categories are useless, as I've never known a DM that doesn't make some house rules or rulings without being new to it. In fact the only DMs that seem to fit the arbitrary nature of a type 1 I've actually played with were tyrants, or had a single player that they were ruling everything for.

I will admit I've been a little bit of a type 3 for my girlfriend before. In my defense I was successfully resisting the temptation, but the other players were there and told me I was being a douche and that I should give in. This still surprises me, but that's because using the above stated DM alignments I'm probably Lawful Good. I'm mostly glad that I don't have anyone who would try and play a god power level character IRL (I'm the most likely to seeing as how I normally play casters, and can optimize them when I want; I usually don't save for 1 or 2 daily tricks for if we're facing a TPK).

Mayhem
2011-01-21, 02:48 PM
{Scrubbed} Regardless, there's been some good stuff come up here about how to run a game and DM problem solving.

agentnone
2011-01-21, 03:23 PM
{Scrubbed}

Grogmir
2011-01-21, 05:17 PM
Didn't really like the op's list tbh sorry. 1 is quite negative imo (thats cause i'm a type 2 but we'll come to that :smallwink:). Even though you stick up for it. You say about just ruling 'it doesn't form' well i've done that on occassion. Most often though when it would derail the plot totally and I apologise for it. but I don't got as far as


1.The Master What the GM says is both law and reality of the game. Neither the players views nor the game rules matter, only what the GM says matters.

If I've got something wrong by raw and its pointed out, I'll change it. I do however add layers to the rules, almost exclusively about terrain effects.

But then I have a few times what would be described as cut scenes. In these other players are prevented from acting. Normally to highlight an important story point for the last active player. There's no saves at that point and nothing they can do about it.


2.The Buddy GM This type of GM is just one of the people playing the game. Everyone who sits down to play the game is equal.

Yep - thats me and my friends.


This type of GM follows the rules as if they are required to play the game. Even to the point of typos, mistakes and just plain crazy stuff. In this game, should something happen to disrupt the game, the Gm just sits back and watches.


Oh no no. I'm fully up on Errta thanks. Most of us our - buts its my job as DM. And if my players get too crazy - its my job to pull it back.

I've had to stop my wife from firing a xbow at two others players for both getting 1s of heal checks to fix her broken back. (There's no PvP in my games)

I had to stop two players (that don't get on very well in RL) from turning on each other over a plot point.

I have to tell them to have their actions ready at the start of each turn. All the freaking time. :smallfurious::smallsmile:

But when they asked me if they could sell the Pies they just made with a 'critical baking roll' as the 'prize in a tavern quiz' as a cover for a gather information check. Then when I pick myself off the floor we just went with it. Cause thats what they wanted to do.



3.The Ego Fuel GM This type of GM is just there to make the players feel good. Even worse then the Buddy GM, this the Ego Fuel is just there to praise the players.

So its clear which one you think is 'right then'. Yet the master is the one I would like to be the less.


This GM sits back while the players do whatever they want, and then they describe what happens in the game. Then the players just sit happily and let the GM tell them how great and cool their characters are in the game.

If you add to this only a smaller amount.
This GM sits back while the players do whatever they want, to achieve the task set them by the GM. then they describe what happens their characters do in the game. Then the players just sit happily eating cate and let the GM tell them how great and cool their characters are in the game. And how the dragon he's just put on the board is going to eat their asses and oh? That cute you've just saved from the celler? Yeah thats a hag. Roll for iniative!

Then to me you have what sounds like a pretty decent session of DnD!

I see it as my job to big up the players, to shine the spot light on each in turn and build up a backstory / plot for each with some kind of peak - hopefully near the end of an arc. I see it as my job to plan encounters that will challenge them - but play to their strengths if they are clever. I see it as my job to describe in game the actions they are having in a great and cool manner and tbh I thought thats what a DM is supposed to do.

So as I think I fit into all three. let dislike all three. And for the OPs obvious bias. I give this only the crumbs of a cookie. cause I'm mean like that. :smalltongue:

Merk
2011-01-21, 05:22 PM
I'd probably list myself as a combination of types 1 and 3. I view the rules as guidelines and don't rely on rulebooks to arbitrate how things happen. On the other hand, I orient the campaign around players and cater things to play to their strengths and make sure that they all have moments where they feel accomplished. My campaigns tend to be very "easy" as I give players lots of tools (action points, re-rolls, powers outside of their class, etc.), but I don't think it's necessarily a bad thing.

Thespianus
2011-01-21, 05:29 PM
So for example, if in my game, a player said ''my character casts the spell gate and calls a Epic Elemental''; I simply say ''the gate fails to form'' and we just keep on playing and having fun.
Would be more "having fun" if you told this to the player ahead if time.

It seems that the odds are higher for "everyone is having fun" if people dont have to waste their spell slots and actions just to receive "No" when they use it.

I love a Master DM, but it's more fun for everyone if the player who are able to cast the spell knows if it will work or not by DM fiat ahead of time.

If the reason it wont work is due to a special ability of a monster or something else that the players don't know of, that's cool, but if it's due to the DM saying "I don't like what you're trying to summon", people should know that ahead of time, IMHO)

Dingle
2011-01-21, 06:11 PM
There doesn't appear to be any point to the original categorisation than to have an excuse to tell stories about GMs, and we could do that anyway.
Can anyone find a point?

Ernir
2011-01-21, 06:40 PM
{Scrubbed}

Jacque
2011-01-21, 06:51 PM
Of course. I'm a Type 1, as I said.


I just see game after game, where the GM is a type 2 or 3, and they have endless problems.



On the other hand, many of the players who come here because they have problems in their game, often describes the type 1 GM as being the reason to the problems.

Ytaker
2011-01-21, 07:01 PM
{Scrubbed}

I find a moral classification works best. A lawful DM obeys the laws of the game and sees the rule books as excellent arbiters. They will also generally be less willing to fudge. A chaotic DM makes up their own rules, and has a limited adherence to the laws of the book and of the rolls of the dice. A good DM tries to benefit the players and protect them, an evil DM tries to hurt the players.

That classification with a few qualifiers on their skill levels and quirks, describes most dms quite well.

So, a lawful good DM might obey the the rules of the game rigerously and tweak their encounters to show off the abilities of their players and not kill them. A lawful evil DM might obey the rules of the game rigerously and be happy if their encounters kill their players, or if their game doesn't play to their PC's strengths.

A chaotic evil DM would actively twist the rules to make it harder for their players. A chaotic good DM would do the same to make it a better challenge, and be more willing to fudge to help their players.

A neutral one would be somewhere inbetween.

Of course, every DMing style has its advantages, and the evil or chaotic or lawful ones certainly aren't worse inherently- some players enjoy those styles. The writer of this thread described a chaotic neutral DM, a lawful good DM, and a chaotic good DM with poor control of their narrative.

Lord.Sorasen
2011-01-21, 07:16 PM
I feel like this system is a good start.. But I also feel it errs in assigning too many traits to each type. Still, it's something.

kyoryu
2011-01-21, 07:36 PM
I don't think the system is bad, but I do think it's unnecessarily biased, and conflates description of "common" types with the author's opinion.

The difference between the Type 1 and Type 2 DM is really the relationship of the DM to the rules. For a Type 1 DM, the rules are a tool. One that is likely generally followed, but certainly not one that binds the DM. Certainly, a player could never argue to the DM "you can't do it, that's not the rules."

A Type 2 DM has a different role in the group - more like the banker in Monopoly. They're expected to follow the same rules as everyone else, and their word carries no particular weight beyond that of a "regular" player.

These are pretty different views of the job of a DM, and their relationship to the rules.

The Type 3 is pure Monty Haul, and is a pretty common style. It's the style where everything goes the players' way, and they get all the goodies they want, and everything gets handed to them on a silver platter.

I don't doubt that Type 1 games have fewer massive player problems, but I don't necessarily think it's because Type 1 DMs are superior - I think it's because the type of game a Type 1 DM runs self-selects against players that are likely to be problems more than the other types of games. Because the attitude of a Type 1 DM is "no, you're not entitled to anything," people with entitlement issues don't play in those games. Similarly, a campaign a friend and I are starting only allows human characters. It's done a pretty good job of weeding out folks we don't want, as the kind of folks that would find that decision a non-starter are probably the same folks that would have issues with our style of gaming overall. (Our filter in this case might be too fine, however...)

The Type 2 game is every bit as viable and legitimate as the Type 1 game. It's not my style of game, honestly, and I think that even if people really try to follow it it's a bit of an illusion, as the DM sets the encounters anyway. I see potential for more issues in a Type 2 game, because "Rules As Written" is an interesting idea, but there's *always* interpretation. Two people can often read the same rules and get very different ideas of what they mean. Without a singular voice of authority, this can potentially lead into chaos, depending on the group.

Lots of people enjoy Type 3 games as well, because, hey, who doesn't like having their ego stroked? But, again, not my style.

As far as bad DMs, you can have bad DMs of every style. You can have bad Type 1s, bad Type 2s, and bad Type 3s - or good ones of any of those types.

I also agree that these types conflate a few different axis of style - but I'd guess that if you did a more scientific study, you'd probably find that most DMs fit reasonably well into one of those buckets in a broad sense.

As far as the Type 1 DM being a problem - the thing a Type 1 DM has to remember is that while he may be the chef, ultimately he's creating his dish so that people can enjoy them.

Demonweave
2011-01-21, 07:55 PM
I was going to have a rant on how wrong the original statement on theis thread is wrong, but I can see that many of you have done it on my behalf :smallamused:

However I just want to add that if we are going by just those three catagories, In a single session I will be in all three of these groups.

I will tell players how it is, and most of the time my word is final.

We stick to the rules (obviously with some houserules)

But I will Change things to fit the story. As long as it's consistant and everyone knows the score then it works and everyone is happy.

Sometimes I will let the players get away with things they probably shouldn't and stroke their ego. Other times, I will take some stuff away that they probably should get. This almost entirely depends on the Players themselves. We have a simple ruling for these kinds of things. If they can come up with interesting/good/well thought out/unusual ways of getting stuff they want, and if they work for it then 9 times out of ten they will get it.

erikun
2011-01-21, 08:22 PM
I'm a type 1 GM myself
Given your description of the three types, I'm hardly surprised. You've classified type 2 and type 3 DMs as objectively worse through your choice of terms.

I've also noticed that your three types of DMs are not necessarily exclusive. Your type 3 DM could easily be a type 1 DM, bending or ignoring the rules to allow players to do whatever they want, or even a type 3-type 2 DM, giving the players whatever they ask for while allowing for any rules interpretations they come up with. As a matter of fact, the strict reading of type 3 ("This GM sits back while the players do whatever they want, and then they describe what happens in the game.") perfectly describes the stereotypical Tomb-of-Horrors DM, who just sits back and tells you when a trap kills your character.

As for your types, I've seen the biggest problem with type 1 DMs. I'm not saying that your players do, and if everyone at the table is enjoying themselves, there's no reason to change things. However, a large number of players that I have seen, either newer 3.5e players or older experienced 2e ones, take great offense if they aren't allowed their capabilities as described in the written material. They go to great lengths to point out what they should be allowed to do through some obscure sourcebook, and become pouting when they don't have their way. Needless to say, a DM that ignores all the rules and just goes by personal judgement for success or failure gets them to stand up and start arguing.

Me? I'd have to say that I'm a type 1.5 DM, primarily because type 1 and type 2 are just the pure-RAW and pure-judgement extremes.

Siosilvar
2011-01-21, 09:18 PM
To paraphrase the OP:

Positive
Type 1 - Willing to use rule 0, and take suggestions.
Type 2 - Recognizes that the DM is also a player. Not overbearing.
Type 3 - Willing to let the players do what they want. Sandbox game.

Negative
Type 1 - Railroader. Not open to suggestions from the players.
Type 2 - Rules-lawyer. Caught up in the minutiae.
Type 3 - Spectator. Monty Haul campaign.

These things don't necessarily go together, but it's decent enough for the few minutes it took me to read through and type this up. They're also definitely not mutually exclusive. Rules-lawyersy types may run sandbox games. Some parts of type 1 and type 3 definitely overlap (mostly the suggestions part).

Kaldrin
2011-01-22, 12:42 AM
ITT: The OP posits three stereotypical strawman DMing styles, then claims that these apply to all DMs without exception. Further pre-emptively argues that anyone arguing that it doesn't cover all situations automatically falls into one of the three categories.

I would also add that in 'hundreds of games' he has apparently never role-played once. With my game group it's about collaborative story-telling, not who "wins".

king.com
2011-01-22, 05:53 AM
Actually, my players generally have to be encouraged to take advantage of the abilities the rules explicitly give them. Because of this, I tend to give them what they ask for most of the time, because there's no real reason to say no even if it's not explicitly RAW or RAI. They need power-ups just to handle standard CR melee monsters.

Thats my players usually.

Jay R
2011-01-22, 09:51 AM
The problem with the original division into categories is that the categories are neither mutually exclusive nor exhaustive.

A GM could be both 1 and 3, or both 2 and 3, or have several elements of either. Or he could fall in none of the categories -- such as somebody willing to listen to the players' interpretations, and then trying to come up with a valid player-accepted compromise. "Yeah, it says 19-29, but that looks like a typo to me. What do the rest of you think?" Or he could be a self-ego type, who just wants to annoy the party.

The OP then took the best aspects of type 1, and compared them with the worst aspects of types 2 and 3. I've seen Master types who were inconsistent and unfair, and whose autocratic arbitrariness ruined the game. I've seen one Type 2 GM who would back down to a passionate rules argument, but would then instantly create a villain using the same rule. The solution to allowing an absurd crit range for ninjas is for the party to start facing lots of ninjas.

I think we're all agreed that the rules have to work consistently and fairly. The OP seems to believe that the rules always work consistently and fairly under a type 1 GM -- but they don't. He also seems to believe that the rules do not work consistently and fairly under other types -- equally untrue.

My experience is that all GMs are unique, and that part of getting into the game is learning this GM's preference. There's an old legal maxim, "Any lawyer knows the law. A good lawyer knows the exceptions. A great lawyer knows the judge."

So I try to play under the following principle: "Any player knows the rules. A good player knows the exceptions. A great player knows the DM."

Here's how a few GMs I have played with react to a situation not directly covered by the rules.
Nolen --Really likes role-playing. If the unusual action fits the character conception, it has a much better chance of working.
Dirk: Very rules-competent. If there's no rule about your proposed action, it's not likely to work, or he will shoehorn it into a rule that doesn't really apply.
David: has a strong feel that it should seem real, combined with a high-level knowledge of physics and chemistry. He'll apply it the way he thinks it would work in the real world.
Rob: He'll discuss it with you, and try to determine what would be reasonable, making it as likely to work as other actions that are in the rules.
Todd: I have no idea what would go through his head. He would tell you to roll a die, and then tell you what happened.

None of them clearly fit the three-way split, and all of them work well, with exciting , successful games.

Tyndmyr
2011-02-03, 03:07 PM
I see three types of GMs:

1.The Master ...

2.The Buddy GM This type of GM is just one of the people playing the game. Everyone who sits down to play the game is equal. In this game, a player can pull out a book and say 'page 33 says this' and the GM will simply nod and say: "yup, that is what the page says''. This type of GM follows the rules as if they are required to play the game. Even to the point of typos, mistakes and just plain crazy stuff. In this game, should something happen to disrupt the game, the Gm just sits back and watches.

3.The Ego Fuel GM ...

These descriptions are bad. Not only have I seen other types of GMs(consider the noob GM, who's never done it before and is utterly clueless, or the GM that would really rather be playing)....but these descriptions are woefully specific.

Consider the above. Most GMs play with friends, and have a certain amount of equality in that regard, and need not resort to authority from position. However, just because a group considers themselves equal does not bind them to following "typos, mistakes, and just plain crazy stuff".

Consider round robin-DMing. I've seen it, played it, DMed it. It's all well and good in the right group. There are shared portions of the world that it is generally agreed you do not mess up. For instance, it would be considered bad form to make a plot in which everyone else's NPCs died horribly without consulting them. However, each DM writes whatever adventure they see fit outside of that. Since all are taking it in turns to DM, they are pretty equal, but on any given night, they might be playing different roles in the game. Your model does not account for such things well at all, thus, it is incorrect.

Delwugor
2011-02-03, 03:24 PM
I think there are only 2 types of GM:

1. My fantastically great GMing and those that take my proven superior GMing techniques as The Word.
2. All other GMs.

I prefer type 1 and so should everyone else.

:smallbiggrin:

Friv
2011-02-03, 04:18 PM
I was going to make a long comment about Type 1 being "DMs who think their way is the clear, superior way to run games", and Type 2 being "DMs who run fun games", but other people have done that better.

Instead, I'm just going to chime in with: OP was incredibly condescending and insulting, and possibly just a trolling attempt.

HunterOfJello
2011-02-03, 04:27 PM
I'm pretty sure I'm a type 2 DM. Based on your suggestion, I'll go for Type 1 in the game tomorrow and see what happens.

I think the group ends up doing way too much metagaming because I act as a Type 2 DM and try to use the rule books way more often than just telling them the result of something that they do. This sounds like a better way to create a positive experience with less complaining at our sessions.


For instance, I told a player not to take levels in crusader. I'm not going to tell him not to again, if he tries to do it when he levels up, I'll just tell him that his character attempts to follow the path, but no gods seem to want to sponsor him and his attempts fail.

~

Any suggestions for ways to change from a Type 2 to a Type 1?

Friv
2011-02-03, 04:55 PM
Any suggestions for ways to change from a Type 2 to a Type 1?

Don't?

In all seriousness, I as a player would be infuriated by a GM who consistantly ignored the rules and setting to do what he wanted anyway. It's one thing to know when to put your foot down, it's another altogether to declare yourself lord and master of all you survey.

So just try to be firm, and remind a player that some things won't work out. If they can't go with that, find a compromise, or accept that they may leave.

DeathsHands
2011-02-03, 05:01 PM
Mix of all three. I law down the law, but I want my players to still feel awesome.

Jornophelanthas
2011-02-03, 05:23 PM
I think there are only 2 types of GM:

1. My fantastically great GMing and those that take my proven superior GMing techniques as The Word.
2. All other GMs.

I prefer type 1 and so should everyone else.

:smallbiggrin:

This thread is a classic example of a straw man argument. More recently, the same OP started up a different thread where he argues that magic in D&D 3.5 is not overpowered if you're a good DM (i.e. his "type 1").

Link: http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=185443

Delwugor
2011-02-03, 05:38 PM
I've also been seeing something similar in another gaming forum. Basic format of "My way is the right way! Discuss."
I can't call it trolling, but it comes across as very antagonistic.

kyoryu
2011-02-03, 06:56 PM
I agree, it comes off as antagonistic. But I think if you strip away the antagonism and "I'm better" aspect, there's some truth here.

The Type 1 DM runs the game. Period. His rule is law. A good Type 1 DM does so for the enjoyment of his players. He considers the rules to be ways to help him determine how the world responds to the players' actions, but isn't *bound* by them. His view of "how the world works" is more important than the rules, for good or bad. This type of DM believes in the "rulings, not rules" philosophy.

The Type 2 DM is an arbitrator of the rules, and runs the NPCs. He follows the rules as closely as possible, and does not contradict them. He may still house-rule things, but that generally falls under the category of modification of the rules. This DM kind of DM doesn't like rulings.

The Type 3 DM views rules as way for the players to show off, effectively. He's likely to ignore any rule which is inconvenient or annoying to the players. The assumption is that PCs are awesome.

As an example of how the 3 DMs might approach a situation. Let's assume that an enemy has grabbed a PC from behind, has a knife to their throat, and is making demands that the PC refuses to meet. The enemy is going to slit the PC's throat.

The Type 1 DM says "getting your throat slit is pretty much fatal. You've got a chance to get out, but it's pretty low because you're in a very compromised situation. Okay, give me a contested dex roll, with you at a -5. If you fail, you're going to be bleeding out and will die quickly without medical assistance." This type of DM treats the rules primarily as a kind of library of previous decisions, much like a judge might refer to a precedent set in another case.

The Type 2 DM says, "Okay, what are the rules for a coup de grace? This seems like that... oh, wait, that's against an incapacitated opponent and you're not incapacitated. Okay, so I guess it's going to be a regular attack against you." He might later create a house-rule about a scenario like this. This type of DM looks at the rules as a contract between players and the DM, and will be hesitant to modify that contract without being explicit about it.

The Type 3 DM says, "That's just some guy, and you're awesome. Coup de grace might be relevant here, but man that would suck. Okay, I'm going to give you a dex chance to get free, and if you fail, he'll get an attack on you." This type of DM views the rules as a set of building blocks for players to build a really awesome character.

None of these are wrong, but the relationship between the DM and the rules changes, and why and how the DM deviates from the rules changes.

The advantage of a Type 1 DM is that if you think in terms of "what happens in the world" vs. "what the rules say," you'll probably be okay, at least if your DM is decent. The disadvantage is that this DM type can easily devolve into the "killer DM", and the quality of the game will be heavily dependent on the DM's ability. Rewards and challenges will be based on what "makes sense" in the world, regardless of the rules and guidelines. This could mean less in some cases, or more in others. But it's a pretty good bet that you won't be finding a magic wand as treasure if you've just fought a bunch of enemy warrior types, unless there's a good world/plot reason for it. And if you wander into a dragon's lair at level 1, well, dragons are pretty tough, and you'll likely be barbecued.

The advantage of a Type 2 DM is dependability. You're insulated from the extremes (good or bad) of a Type 1 DM. If you know the rules, you'll do well. The disadvantages can be that the rules sometimes contradict what makes logical sense, and that knowing the rules well becomes more important than with a Type 1 DM. Rewards and challenges will be based on the rules as written, and suggested balancing points. If the rules say "roll on chart 8", and that means that an enemy fighter was carrying a wand, so be it. Challenges will be by the book, and the DM will probably play pretty closely to the rules, even if the party is not doing well.

The advantage of a Type 3 DM is that everyone will have fun, at least initially. The disadvantage is that this type of game can get rather meaningless over time, much like playing a video game with all the cheats on. Rewards and challenges will be based on what will make the players happy. If you're looking for a specific bow type, chances are you'll find it, eventually. Challenges will probably not be too hard, and the DM will tone them down if necessary.

TL;DR version:

Really it's about first principles.

The Type 1 DM is guided first and foremost by what makes sense in the world. The rules, and even player enjoyment, are secondary considerations.

The Type 2 DM is guided first and foremost by the rules. Whether it's logical or not, or will make the players happy directly or indirectly, is secondary.

The Type 3 DM is guided first and foremost by what will make players happy. If that involves bending the rules, or doing illogical things in the world, so be it.

Knaight
2011-02-03, 07:03 PM
The evidence of this easy to see. A good example is to simply look at any D&D boards. You will see post after post from GM's who have problems with their game, what to know how or why a rule works or post a 'fix' for broken things.

It's most striking to ask any Old School player(who has not been corrupted my modern gamers) about any of the GMs posts. The player will have the simple question: "Why does the GM not just say what is what?'' For example:You can easily find a ''Help My players are abusing Gate to get wishes'' post. The Old School gamer would just say ''that does not work''.

Interesting how GM is used throughout, but suddenly its only D&D boards worth looking at. Looking at many others, I'm seeing very little in the way of problems. The current Fudge forum has two posts relating to the quality of an ongoing game that I'm aware of. One of them says "I was just in Knaight's game, and it was awesome", and the other one says "I just GMed for a group of people, and it was awesome." I can verify that I'm not a type 1 GM, and I highly suspect that the other person isn't either.

Incidentally, the vast majority of commentary I've seen relating to the D&D problems that air on D&D boards has fit into about three patterns. There is the "D&D sucks, no wonder they are frustrated fighting the system" attitude, queries relating to why D&D is being played if it clearly isn't working with that group, and queries as to why anyone would play in a game full of people who seem to be aiming to be disruptive.

Czin
2011-02-03, 07:23 PM
I am my own type of DM. I do not follow the rules of the official game per se, rather I use a system created by my previous DM that I came to use following his demise in a car accident, though I had played under it for quite some time before that. This system is best described as 3.5e and Dark Heresy's illegitimate lovechild. While I follow it reverently out of respect for my old DM and the fact that it's a very, very well made and thought out system (if somewhat clunky and possessing a steep learning curve) I'll make my own decisions quite often.

In addition, since I am not the only DM, (there are in fact five DMs at my table, I am merely the Ace of Spades Dungeon Master, the highest rank which was formerly held by my previous DM, the other ranks are the King of Hearts DM, the Queen of Diamonds DM, and the two Jack of Clubs DMs) I cannot be totally authoritarian since my bidding can be overridden by a consensus of both the King of Hearts and Queen of Diamonds DM or just one of the Monarchs and both of the Jacks. Also, if all 20 of the players unanimously vote to veto my action (only ten are needed to veto that of a King of Hearts or Queen of Diamonds DM, and only five are needed to veto the actions of a Jack of Clubs DM) then that action is veto'd.

So the best way to describe my style of DMing is the constitutional DM; there are inbuilt rules as to what I can and can't do and if my actions are unpopular, they can be negated, and if I am doing very poorly as a DM I can be demoted to a lower rank of DM, ousted from the "Royal Hand" (the name for the five DMs), or even banished from the table altogether. While most tables can do this, I think mine is one of the only ones that actually has a system for it.

Odin the Ignoble
2011-02-03, 08:04 PM
You should play Hero System. Then you won't have these problems.

Aemoh87
2011-02-07, 05:03 PM
It seems like the original poster was mad at his GM...

But as a long time GM I have three rules:

1. Books Trump Me

This is true because players don't know what I am thinking when they build characters or plot schemes so they need something they can trust to remain true. Your a bad GM if you don't let people show you the rules in a timely fashion. With that said I only give players 30 seconds to tell me where a ruling is, if they can't I make a judgment call then try to clarify the actual ruling during down time or before next session.

With this said my players are responsible for reading the players handbook of whatever game we are playings no ifs ands or buts. If I have to explain players handbook rules to them over and over I pull them aside and tell them to read it before they come to play again.

2. The Game is to have fun.

If your not having fun don't play. If your not having fun with the game don't play it. If the game is not fun anymore don't play. If any of these apply follow them strictly.

I also don't allow explicit sexuality in my games. Yeah great you went to the brothel, good job, no one cares.

3. Time is valuable.

I play a lot of DND but I don't have a lot of free time. I don't like showing up to sessions where people do other things and are way off task. I also don't like it when people aren't prepared. Take my time seriously please.