Bringing back the obscure mediator option, and helping bored girlfriends!

[Pika...]

OK, odd idea, but here goes.

The background to all this:
0. There was an option for a mediator in the original D&D boxed set from what I have been told.
1. I have had players complain/whine about me being "out to kill their PCs", when I start every campaign making it clear I run old-school DM Vs. Players.
2. I do not DM fudge any dice roll or action made by either PCs or NPCs. EVER. This has led to problems, because supposedly you are "supposed" to, which I disagree with (takes the challenge/fun out of it for me as a player or DM).
3. I use logical/Gygax's Rule 0.
4. Everyone has seen what I call the Bored Girlfriend Syndrome. This is when a girlfriend/fiancee/wife is supportive of her spouse's gaming habbit, and will even accompany their significant other to games and just...sit there...totally bored. I heard of one case where the girlfriend became the official notes taker/recapper. This got me thinking!

A friend of mine has a wife who gets bored/lonely when he leaves to play ever week. She is a good friend, as well as the husband. I consider her smart, and fair. So I got to thinking today after I recalled the above case. Why not get her involved (she does not want to actually play) in a way she might enjoy, let her and her hubby enjoy the gaming time together, while letting me finally untie my hands and run as I enjoy it as a DM! :smallbiggrin:

5. I figure it would work as follows:
a)The DM (myself) sits at one table edge, while the mediator sits at the opposite.
b) If the players and DM can not come to an agreement over a rule/DM's call/what-have-you on their own anyone may choose to call the mediator for a ruling.
c) The mediator may choose to step in if he/she feels argument is starting/starting to get out of hand/someone is unhappy and not speaking up/what-have-you.
d) Once the mediator is called upon first the player speaking for the group gets two minutes (a sand timer will be used) to plead their case to the mediator. They may argue rules/houserules, or logic/common sense that should apply. The mediator may choose to then look up any rules/houserules, but no looking up or pointing to books during the plea!
e) The DM then pleads their case the same way.
f) The mediator then makes a ruling.
g) Once the ruling is made there is NO ARGUING. It is done, so everyone deals with it.
h) There is NO getting upset at the mediator. He/She is doing the group a huge favor. Taking her/his time to be there and help the game move smoothly.
i) Mediators can not be players. It would be impossible for them to be unbiased. Same is true for them being the DM.



In my case there is also the following:
j) There is also a small list of NPCs/subjects/etc that the mediator can not overrule the DM on. In the case of NPCs, that is usually because they are overdeities which in my setting are so powerful mechanics/rules are of no concern to them. Same with deities when interacted with within their own realms/keeps.






So, thoughts? Ideas to improve this? Feel free to be brutally honest.

[The Glyphstone]

My first thought is "no."
My second is "oh god no."
My third is "HELL NO".

It's just a bad idea. Regardless of how fair you think she is, you're putting her on the spot where she might have to rule for/against her husband...no matter which way she goes, there's the looming grey cloud of favoritism, either between them or from the other players. Not to mention that if she doesn't know the rules/doesn't play, she'll be an unreliable rules mediator at best.

[Grynning]

f) The mediator then makes a ruling.
g) Once the ruling is made there is NO ARGUING. It is done, so everyone deals with it.
h) There is NO getting upset at the mediator. He/She is doing the group a huge favor. Taking her/his time to be there and help the game move smoothly.


This sounds good on paper, but will never work in practice. D&D players by nature tend to be argumentative people. Most people in general do not like to sit by and shut up if they believe they're right. Someone would end up upset at someone if there was a person who wasn't even involved in the game making these kinds of calls.

Also, there's no guarantee that the lady you are proposing do this wouldn't find this boring for the same reasons she doesn't just play the game with you guys.



In my case there is also the following:
j) There is also a small list of NPCs/subjects/etc that the mediator can not overrule the DM on. In the case of NPCs, that is usually because they are overdeities which in my setting are so powerful mechanics/rules are of no concern to them. Same with deities when interacted with within their own realms/keeps.


On the above - if you were to implement some sort of mediator/arbitration outside of the DM, wanting to still be able to have your DM god powers is wanting to have your cake and eat it too.

If your players really have issues with your DM'ing style (and I'm not trying to say either side is right or wrong, different strokes and all), you guys should maybe try some different games or rotate DM's or something.

[Azernak0]

Ehhh, it would never work. You are basically making someone a Judge. The thing with being a Judge is that you kinda gotta know the law before you lay down a judgment. You are basically singling someone out and telling them "Hey, you keep track of all the rules and when there is a dispute, you lay down the hammer." Also, I don't really see how this fixes the idea of someone being totally bored. The only change is that every once in a while the group would turn to that person and say "what do you think?" If someone is sitting at a game table truly bored, I would probably insist they do something else because being bored while others enjoy themselves is not supportive to either person.


Now, for Mr. Azernak0's rantings!

The idea that you put forth of the "Bored Girlfriend" is actually damaging to the hobby of tabletop gaming as a whole. It assumes that women would be completely bored with it, that only men find the hobby engaging, or that all women will feel the need to be "supportive" in the male's hobby. I understand that you were only using the common vernacular but it shows how our little group can damage itself. This makes Mr. Azernak0 sad :smallfrown:

[Coidzor]

1. I have had players complain/whine about me being "out to kill their PCs", when I start every campaign making it clear I run old-school DM Vs. Players.

Well, it seems the root of the problem here is you need to find a group of players that's perfectly fine with you intentionally setting out to screw them over at every turn, communicate what you mean better, or adapt to what your audience actually wants.

[Yora]

1. I have had players complain/whine about me being "out to kill their PCs", when I start every campaign making it clear I run old-school DM Vs. Players.
Redundant sentence is redundant?
Isn't "old school DM vs. players" exactly "I'm out to kill your PCs"? :smallamused:

[olthar]

Won't work.

If the players are unhappy with stuff, then do your rolling in front of them because the dice can't lie. If a player wants to say "you rolled a 20 to hit me but you should change it to a miss" in front of all of the other players when everyone can see it, then the other players should call that guy out as a whiner leaving you safe.

[akma]

1. I have had players complain/whine about me being "out to kill their PCs", when I start every campaign making it clear I run old-school DM Vs. Players.


Then your DMing style doesn`t fit your players style. How come you are the DM?



4. Everyone has seen what I call the Bored Girlfriend Syndrome. This is when a girlfriend/fiancee/wife is supportive of her spouse's gaming habbit, and will even accompany their significant other to games and just...sit there...totally bored.

I have seen a diffrent phenomana - someone forcing their gaming habbit on an applatonic friend that isn`t realy intrested in it. For the record, both are female.



In my case there is also the following:
j) There is also a small list of NPCs/subjects/etc that the mediator can not overrule the DM on. In the case of NPCs, that is usually because they are overdeities which in my setting are so powerful mechanics/rules are of no concern to them. Same with deities when interacted with within their own realms/keeps.

That section just sounds like an excuse for railroading. Besides, it would lead to more arguing as I don`t think the players would be willing to simply give up that easily.
Also, do the players regulary encounter overdeities and deities in their realms/keeps?
Does it lead to events on which they have no control?

[Steveotep]

I don't remember the "mediator" option, but I do remember the "caller" in original D&D. One of the players is selected as caller and only he is allowed to talk to the DM! The other players tell the caller what their characters are doing, and the caller relays it to the DM. I think it was a relic of the miniatures wargaming legacy of D&D, which I don't think we used more than once.

Rules arguments are best settled by a decision by the DM, with possibly a review afterwards when tempers have calmed. If players don't like it, they are welcome to DM.

Some players might like the idea of being "party scribe" and keeping track of what is said and what happens. Others might prefer to be "monster player" who runs the antagonists out to kill the PCs, leaving the DM to be the impartial referee.

[Tancred]

OP, why not just tell her you'd like to involve her, and ask her how you can adapt your style to see her at the table?

Every good DM will adapt their style to allow their players to have the most fun, so this is an opportunity to learn more about yourself, and your DM'ing, and how you can run the best campaigns possible for everyone at the table.

The most critical information you've missed here is why she's not interested in playing. If you don't know that, then you'll never know how to address the situation.

You strike me as someone who's very rules-oriented; not only do you play by exactly how the dice roll, but when faced with a "people" problem, the approach you've shown is to come up with new rules to fit the situation. I think you need a people-based solution.

[Bang!]

Your solution to a player being bored is to:
Not let that person play
Ask that person to sit at the table while everyone else plays
Expect that person to develop a better knowledge of the rules than people who enjoy the game.

...

How could this possibly be a good idea?

[Quietus]

No, no, no, no, NO.




My first thought is "no."
My second is "oh god no."
My third is "HELL NO".

It's just a bad idea. Regardless of how fair you think she is, you're putting her on the spot where she might have to rule for/against her husband...no matter which way she goes, there's the looming grey cloud of favoritism, either between them or from the other players. Not to mention that if she doesn't know the rules/doesn't play, she'll be an unreliable rules mediator at best.

This is exactly the thoughts and concerns that came up when I was reading this. Pitting a girlfriend between you and her boyfriend = bad. Asking someone who doesn't understand the rules at all to mediate rules disputes = bad. There is literally nothing good that will come from this.

[The Glyphstone]

No, no, no, no, NO.





This is exactly the thoughts and concerns that came up when I was reading this. Pitting a girlfriend between you and her boyfriend = bad. Asking someone who doesn't understand the rules at all to mediate rules disputes = bad. There is literally nothing good that will come from this.

Well, I wouldn't say nothing bad. There's always the slim possibility of fire, screaming, and explosions, which if not good, are at least entertaining.

[Canarr]

Agree with the previous posters. Making a player be the mediator puts the responsibility for the rules from the GM where it belongs on the shoulders of a player - that's not good. Giving this job to someone who's not really a seasoned player, and not even that interested in the game, anyway - that's worse.

I'd kill that idea, pronto. If your players don't like your GMing style, either change your style or change your players. If the woman in question isn't really interested in playing, either ask her to stay away if she's annoying in any way, or let her play a character that doesn't do much. Either way, a lot better than putting that kind of judicial power in her hands.

[cfalcon]

"Bored Girlfriend" is a pretty legit problem. It's almost *always* a girlfriend or wife, but it CAN be a boyfriend / husband as well. Normally it happens when the girlfriend's whole social circle plays except her- or she does play, but she's not really into it.

I don't think the mediator idea is a good one. I also think everyone in this thread has expressed the ideas pretty well. I also play by rule 0- but I'm willing to houserule away stuff I don't like on the spot, which means that in general the players come across thinking stuff is pretty fair (when they don't it's usually deliberate- the game we just started, I ended up denying starting gold / real equipment to one of the characters- seemingly arbitrary, but this character is a pixie, and the game began a day before the "World Fair", so he had various levels of free pickings, being invisible and flying- the question being, if he's poor, would he steal? He answered that question in the affirmative, but very quickly found his boundaries, stealing excess food, or just a bit from merchants, etc- with starting wealth, he wouldn't have felt stressed, his character was drawn out as "world against me, run of bad luck", and I wanted to actually make HIM feel that emotion, just a bit).


I would suggest that "rule 0" style pretty much always works, if you are doing it with the best interest of the game in mind, and if you aren't, focus on taking your ego out of the picture. Always put yourself in the heads of your players, and always do what you do with the goal of making stuff awesome and fun.

Now, back to the Bored Girlfriend. The very BEST role for Bored Girlfriend is a beatstick. This lets her contribute materially and *obviously*. The problem is that it's likely to be the role she is least interested in- most girls do not easily get into the role of threatening. Those that do would likely not drive you to any distraction- you'd have a well built punchy-face, punching things!

Consider what roles are viable and valuable in your game, and suggest one of those. Stay away from:
Cleric / Druid- When it comes to *this specific* situation, these classes are particularly unfortunate in their combination of great power, high skill cap, and general female appeal. Consider using spontaneous versions of each, either the favored soul or the actual spontaneous version. These don't have to be the only clerics and druids in your world, but add support for them. The druid that goes this role gets something else instead of wild shape, because we all know that is searching the net and looking through books and posting on forums and choosing a result that meets an appropriate power level- give something else.
Wizard- This class is also all about homework. Still better than the cleric and druid, because the spell list for any individual wizard will be lower than for any individual cleric. A sorcerer works better because spell choices are normally discussed once each level.

Things I would recommend:

Do monks work in your game? If you have adjusted the monk, or adjusted your game, then the answer could be yes. Monks are tactically interesting, and have clutch things they can do each round. A successful stunning fist is very visceral, and the penalty for failing to stun is just you beat stuff up more. In my games, monks are a solid choice. If it's true in yours, consider it.

Archer- archers with the ability to deliver consistent damage each round are often good for eliminating boredom and helping the party- the archer can quickly pick the weakest foe possible. Given a list of interesting arrows, the archer can contribute a little bit of battlefield control as well. The downside here is that your archer, when attacked in melee, becomes a regular fighter. Still a solid recommendation.

Pixie- If you allow pixies, consider recommending one. Note that you will likely need to help to make the pixie valuable- but you get one permanent image a day, which is largely limited by the imagination of the player in most situations, and a bunch of cool abilities. An advanced play choice, but one that might entirely remove the boredom.



The long term solution is to either make a gamer out of her, or get a few other bored girlfriends and they go out on the town on gaming night. Long term you don't want a disinterested player.

[Thrice Dead Cat]

I am heavily against this, and, as others have posted, it seems this isn't the actual issue, but rather the effect of something else. There's also the fact that this person won't actually be there to game or be a part of anything, just forced to make a snap (<4 minute with arguably no real rules knowledge) call for mutual friends.

This is, not to say, that there can't be someone added to the game. In my own experience, have had non-gamer friends show up either to watch the game or to be additional NPCs either to appropriately set the mood - such as bringing in a pre-law student to play a judge - or simply to have extra people there to spice up the game and add drama/plot threads to an otherwise quick or abbreviated session.

Probably the easiest way to bring someone in on this is to see if they have any plot ideas for the game and/or bring them up to speed on your schemes and ask them for advice. While there may be some dead moments, I find that most people do enjoy at least watching the players go through something they've designed and interact with various quasi-DMPCs the third party can use for whatever reason.

[Quietus]

Well, I wouldn't say nothing bad. There's always the slim possibility of fire, screaming, and explosions, which if not good, are at least entertaining.

Well, this is true. However, you also run the risk of indiscriminate stabbings, which are far less entertaining, and frequently end up in lengthy hospital trips and/or legal battles. I'm sure I'm not the only one thinking of Lanky here...

On the other hand, you could just have her hold two grenades, and pull the pins. You know she won't be going to sleep, at least.. unless she has narcolepsy, I guess. That could get messy.