PDA

View Full Version : Is this board Anti-DM?



Toofey
2011-05-25, 10:15 AM
It seems to me reading here that this board is very player oriented, and in general is against DMs in that it's very anti-rule 0, people seem to think it's wrong for DMs to keep secrets from their players (essential to running a good campaign) people seem to think it's wrong for a Dm to contradict a rule book (also pretty important for them to be able to do) etc...

I wasn't sure what forum to put this in, but I think it's a question worth exploring.

Moff Chumley
2011-05-25, 10:21 AM
This forum tends to fixate on RAW, yeah. DMs, in my experience, tend to be less focused on mechanics and more on storytelling, which is why you don't find as many of them as you do players in the RP section.

Serpentine
2011-05-25, 10:23 AM
People like to make threads with those premises, yes. However, note how much arguing that goes on in them. There's plenty of DMs and... "DM sympathisers"? around here.

Mystic Muse
2011-05-25, 10:23 AM
It seems to me reading here that this board is very player oriented, and in general is against DMs in that it's very anti-rule 0, people seem to think it's wrong for DMs to keep secrets from their players (essential to running a good campaign) people seem to think it's wrong for a Dm to contradict a rule book (also pretty important for them to be able to do) etc...

I wasn't sure what forum to put this in, but I think it's a question worth exploring.

Not all people are like that.

I don't think a DM should keep houserules secrets because it can completely screw a character over if they do. Using rule zero isn't necessarily bad, although it can be.

Thufir
2011-05-25, 10:25 AM
I wasn't sure what forum to put this in,

Roleplaying Games would have made more sense, since that's where they talk about this kind of thing.

But based on the small amount of time I've spent in that subforum, I don't think it's particularly so. There is considerable division of opinion, but there are numerous people on both sides of the arguments.

Gullintanni
2011-05-25, 10:26 AM
It seems to me reading here that this board is very player oriented, and in general is against DMs in that it's very anti-rule 0, people seem to think it's wrong for DMs to keep secrets from their players (essential to running a good campaign) people seem to think it's wrong for a Dm to contradict a rule book (also pretty important for them to be able to do) etc...

I wasn't sure what forum to put this in, but I think it's a question worth exploring.

It's not so much that people on this forum are "anti-DM" in the sense that you present, but that 3.5 D&D as a system seems to include in it an inherent assumption that DMs should play by the same rules as the players when creating challenges/monsters/etc...hence the presence of templates, monster only classes and PrCs etc.

DMs in 3.5 are supposed to use the tools presented to them by the books the same way players are, in order to create a compelling and challenging campaign. This is counter intuitive if you're coming from, say AD&D, where DM fiat powers the world and many of its rules.

What you're encountering is a logical progression of these ideas...that 3.5 has tools built in that preclude the DM needing to apply rule zero to solve problems. The ruleset is robust enough for the DM not to require rule zero at all, and so players tend to feel cheated when they play by the rules, and the DM ignores them.

EDIT: That said, there are many different schools of thought on these boards about the validity of rule zero, and no interpretation is wrong. If you and your players are having fun, you're playing D&D right. Period.

HalfDragonCube
2011-05-25, 10:26 AM
Players outnumber DMs more than four to one, but anti-DM is a tad harsh-sounding.

Toofey
2011-05-25, 10:26 AM
What is RAW? I just don't understand why some of them are so virulently opposed to the story teller in a game doing things that don't have to do with them, or that interfere with their "plans" and as a DM I don't understand how someone even could DM for these people. (other than a sandbox and never saying no, but that's no way to run a fun game for anyone other than the loudest person in the room)

KuReshtin
2011-05-25, 10:27 AM
I would think that the rason why it sometimes may seem very player oriented is because there are generally more players than there are DMs.

Also, with Rule 0, I think it's more important to be consistent about it rather than just quote Rule 0 whenever the DM feels like throwing a curve ball at the players.

It's something that should be discussed with the players before the game starts. What aspects of the game will be house ruled rather than followed by RAW, or at least that there will be times when the RAW will be overruled by the DM.

I know for a fact that I'd be very frustrated as a player if the group has been following one rule for the majority of the campaign, and then the DM decides to change the ruling without informing the players about it beforehand.

I believe that the sig of one of our fellow Playgrounders is very relevant:


The following rules are integral to any roleplaying game:
Rule 0: The Gamesmaster is always right.
Rule 7: Do not take the piss.

Archpaladin Zousha
2011-05-25, 10:28 AM
RAW stands for Rules As Written, taking the text of the rulebooks in as literal a way as you can. All numbers, no fluff getting in the way.

Incidentally, I don't hate DMs and their actions. I'm more frustrated by the fact that I'm forced to DM games that I want to play in because nobody else seems interested. :smallfrown:

Cealocanth
2011-05-25, 10:28 AM
It's not what I would call "Anti-DM" but, like any D&D game, there are more players than DMs here.

This is the place where the players come to complain about their DMs, and that usually boils down to a player hatred of Rule 0. So, yes, the masses do tend to be players sworn against the use Rule 0, but if you're a DM like me who uses Rule 0 (although sparingly), there are several others out there who can help you.

Durmegil Guldur
2011-05-25, 10:32 AM
I think that the DM has to keep secrets from the players in some cases. Some games systems outright state so in the rules for certain things. Rolls in secret are some examples where the PCs don't need to know that there's something in a particular chamber that they could find with the correct Perception/Spot/Search check, but just having everyone roll a dice and not telling them why puts them on guard (and has the metagamers starting to declare actions to try and second-guess the DM).

One example where secrets shouldn't be kept is where a DMPC is involved with the party. Such a character can quickly be resented by the players if the playing field is not equal and the DM saves their PC from the things that would mean real trouble/death for any of the other PCs.

zyborg
2011-05-25, 10:38 AM
Having played Paranoia, I know that Rule 0 can be used very well in the right situation. For D&D, the situations are rare, but they do exist.

Shades of Gray
2011-05-25, 10:39 AM
I believe there are fewer DM-based threads because there is one DM for every 4 or so players.

Obrysii
2011-05-25, 10:42 AM
Hi, my name is Obrysii, and I am a DM.

Hi guys.

I use Rule 0 a lot for "plot" - but in combat I try to use the RAW as much as possible. Rule 0 is great for doing stuff that the mechanics don't allow, and while sparing, is useful for grandiose scenes.

In my case, its mostly deity-level power that needs to be Rule 0'ed.

Keld Denar
2011-05-25, 10:47 AM
There are a lot of people who are against DMs who impose senseless or heavy-handed rules limitations. There is a thread on the RPing forum right now about a guy playing with a DM who is running a "low magic" game, which basically has 0 magical loot, yet 3 of the other players are playing Cleric, Wizard, and Sorcerer. Also, because the DM doesn't understand ToB, is restricting the guy's Warblade to be unable to refresh maneuvers in combat, a core mechanic that Warblade is balanced around (having fewer maneuvers readied than a Swordsage, but faster recovery). Basically, the player feels neutered to the point where he isn't enjoying combat.

That doesn't mean that the DM is a bad story teller, and in fact he might be the BEST story teller ever, but the player still isn't having fun because that one aspect of the game is so...arbitrary. It chafes uncomfortably.

That said, my current DM messes with monsters all the time. He makes up new abilities and monsters and stuff because most of us know all of the monsters in MMI-V. This is fine, it adds a new fear and respect to combat that is enjoyable, IMO. I don't mind the DM changing stuff about that, or keeping the plots and machinations of the bad guy secret until the players discover them, but arbitrarily screwing a player based on your own ill-conceived interpretation of balance is crappy. Heavy-handed bannings with the intention of maintaining balance is crappy. Excessive and overly complicated house rules that don't add much to the game are crappy.

Totally Guy
2011-05-25, 10:47 AM
I think the main conflict tends to be about people insisting that a good GM is one particular thing. Different games do different things and the GM's role differs from one to another.

So such statements as "A good GM uses a screen" or whatever won't always be true to all people. It's an assumption that a good GM is one thing and is some kind of universal truth.

Interestingly enough, I don't agree with Last Resort's signature. And we game together.

KuReshtin
2011-05-25, 10:49 AM
I think that the DM has to keep secrets from the players in some cases. Some games systems outright state so in the rules for certain things. Rolls in secret are some examples where the PCs don't need to know that there's something in a particular chamber that they could find with the correct Perception/Spot/Search check, but just having everyone roll a dice and not telling them why puts them on guard (and has the metagamers starting to declare actions to try and second-guess the DM).


This statement I agree with completely. Hell, as a player, I have been known to write a note and hand it to the DM asking him to just roll a set of dice and just say either 'Yes' or 'No' for no reason other than to keep my fellow players on their toes.
It's also important that players should be able to use a bit of secret planning without having to notify the DM so that they, as a group, can try to outsmart the DM.

Toofey
2011-05-25, 11:01 AM
I have gotten yelled at by players here for saying that I have house rules which I made available to the players. Just sayin...



SUPER SAYIN

Edit:


It's also important that players should be able to use a bit of secret planning without having to notify the DM so that they, as a group, can try to outsmart the DM.
I couldn't agree more I try to give the players ample time to plan "behind my back" I gave them a device that allows them to communicate very quickly in game time, and often go to do something (like pee, or get a snack, or just stretch my legs) when they spot enemies or run into something odd, so they have the chance to plan behind my back under the auspices of that item letting them communicate quickly.

KuReshtin
2011-05-25, 11:03 AM
I have gotten yelled at by players here for saying that I have house rules which I made available to the players. Just sayin...



SUPER SAYIN

In that case, I'd say that's not your problem, but theirs. If you made the house rules available before the game and they still agreed to play in that game, they forfeited their right to complain about you using that rule once the game is started.

That's my opinion, at least.

PairO'Dice Lost
2011-05-25, 11:08 AM
This forum tends to fixate on RAW, yeah. DMs, in my experience, tend to be less focused on mechanics and more on storytelling, which is why you don't find as many of them as you do players in the RP section.


What is RAW? I just don't understand why some of them are so virulently opposed to the story teller in a game doing things that don't have to do with them, or that interfere with their "plans" and as a DM I don't understand how someone even could DM for these people. (other than a sandbox and never saying no, but that's no way to run a fun game for anyone other than the loudest person in the room)

I don't like the terms "storytelling" or "storyteller;" I much prefer the AD&D term "referee." When I DM, I'm not really telling a story; that implies that I have a more or less rigid plot I've made and the players are going through it, or that I am a narrator that does what is dramatically appropriate rather than what is appropriate by the rules. The term "referee" implies that I set up the world, set up the outlines of a plot (stat some bad guys, "you all meet in a tavern," etc.) and then rule what happens based on PC and NPC actions. An RPG is about gaming together; the DM doesn't have a privileged position or license to twist the rules as he wants just because he's the DM. He certainly has a right to have fun and should have a say in things, because he probably puts in the most effort and is designated as the arbiter of the rules, but that makes him closer to "most equal among equals" rather than the god that some make him out to be.

In 3e, I build all of my NPCs by the rules, and any houserules or special classes or whatever are explained and made known to the PCs at the first opportunity (e.g. if the PCs haven't discovered the Most Secret Order of Whatzit yet, I won't tell them about it, but when they run into a member of the Agent of the Most Secret Order PrC, they can make Knowledge checks or otherwise investigate it, and if they join the order it'll be open to them rather than being NPC-only). I believe that the whole point of a rules-heavy game like 3e is that the DM plays by the same rules as the players, using rule 0 only where necessary, not to fiat things into existence just because. If I want to play a game where the DM is allowed and expected to control and modify the game to a greater degree, I'll pull out my 1e books and run a game of that.

Now, I don't claim that this is the One True WayTM of gaming (or I'd get in trouble with Glug :smallwink:), but I do think it's important to realize that players and DMs focusing on RAW, or players asking their DM to be fairer, or generally preferring the DM to "play by the rules" is not a bad thing, and in fact one of the strengths of 3e is that you can do so much within the rules (though whether it's easy or effective is another story). Players who are "fixated on RAW" or are "virulently opposed to the [DM] doing things" aren't bad people or even at all rare; it's just as valid a playstyle, and its only when the "DMs should play fair" players clash with the "screw the rules, it's my world and my plot" DMs that problems arise.

Toofey
2011-05-25, 11:08 AM
Oh, my players very seldom complain about my antics, and most of the time the player who complains about my antics only has problems because he doesn't pay attention outside of when we're fighting so the other players have been shutting him down and he's starting to get the hint and improve his Role play so it's working out.

The Glyphstone
2011-05-25, 11:12 AM
It's not that the boards are anti-DM, it's that human nature gravitates towards the negative. People rarely come on here posting about how awesome their DMs are, it's far more common to see threads about this problem or that with the DM or another player. Likewise, negative-angled threads (and those with lots of arguing) stick in memory longer.

One sec, putting my other hat on.


Great Modthulhu: Also, moved to Roleplaying Games (General). Burble.

Comet
2011-05-25, 11:12 AM
There is this popular notion going around that states that D&D, and other rules-heavy roleplaying games, appeal to math nerds by turning storytelling, conflict resolution and character study into numbers and statistics. Since these boards are very keen on 3.5 D&D, I find this relevant. Rule 0 is ambiguous and abstract and, as such, can feel weird or frustrating for those people who are into stat tweaking, character building and the whole 'numbers' part of D&D.

Besides that, talking about numbers and rules and rights and wrongs is way easier than discussing rule 0 or dramatic storytelling or improvisation. The game is concrete, the story is always more abstract. If we just sat around discussing free-form storytelling, it wouldn't be much different from, say, a writers' or actors' workshop and that is not what the majority here finds the most exciting part of the roleplaying experience. RAW is relatively simple and offers a common ground for everyone to base their discussions on.

All in all, as said above by others, it's largely about the culture specific to D&D. Not entirely, but I still think it's worth noting. Most of the people here are players, most of them play D&D 3.5 and most of them enjoy the concrete numbers game aspect of things and like to feel in control of their character and the world around them.

valadil
2011-05-25, 11:20 AM
I don't think the boards are opposed to rule 0, but that the people who are opposed are very, very vocal about it.

And I wouldn't say the boards are anti DM so much as pro player. There's a lot of encouragement to empower the players rather than neuter them.

Keld Denar
2011-05-25, 11:26 AM
I don't like the terms "storytelling" or "storyteller;" I much prefer the AD&D term "referee."
Interesting. Living Greyhawk used to use the term "Judge", for DMs. You didn't DM a LG module, so much as judge it. This was to ensure that most people's experience with the module would be relatively similar. Interesting...


Burble.
What is Burble, Preciousssss?


I have gotten yelled at by players here for saying that I have house rules which I made available to the players. Just sayin...

I doubt you were "yelled at" for saying that you make your house rules available to players. In fact, most people around here advocate making house rules available PLENTY ahead of time, especially CharGen rules, so a player doesn't show up with an illegal character, or a character built around the Intimidate rules, when you've changed how the Intimidate skill works completely, for example. If you make a house rule stating that there are no spells above 6th level, the guy who shows up with a Wizard20 is gonna be awfully disappointed.

No, if you were "yelled at", I'm guessing it was because you posted your rules, and people had a beef with them. Not everyone agrees with what makes a "good" set of house rules, which is grounds for discussion and unfortunately, a bit of "yelling" sometimes.

Archpaladin Zousha
2011-05-25, 11:26 AM
I just wish someone would encourage ME to play instead of forcing me to DM when I really suck at it. :smallfrown:

Alchemistmerlin
2011-05-25, 11:29 AM
Knowing rules is above your clearance. As such, quoting the rules is treason. Treason is punishable by death.

Have a nice day.

- Friend Computer

Mastikator
2011-05-25, 11:29 AM
In my day we let our DM do whatever he wanted AND WE LIKED IT!!

:smallyuk:

I don't think it's that the people here in general are anti-DM but rather there are a few who are bitter because they've played with a bad DM. Yes, DM's are human and they can error, and because of their power they can be far more toxic than bad players.
To minimize my own badness I like to ask the players about flaws that need to improve at the end of every session.

I think also that some people just can't handle that someone else can declare by fiat a rule or make a completely arbitrary decision without even needing to even explain. But honestly I doubt these people have ever been DM's themselves, they probably don't know the sheer amount of time it takes to prepare a campaign (or learn it if you get a external module), and the stress it takes to keep so many facts in your head and make so many impromptu decisions at once just to keep the game flowing.
Basically, if you want a DM that only functions as a rule-machine, then you be the DM and I be the player.

some guy
2011-05-25, 11:32 AM
Like others have said, there are more players than DM's and people tend to post problems or complaints about people. The "Habits that kill fun in a session." has grown to 31 pages, while it's opposite has died a quiet death.

What does surprise me though, is when, in response to the notion of a problem DM, people say that if the players leave, the DM doesn't have a game anymore. Which is true, but I think it's more easy for a DM to find players then for a player to find DM's.


I don't like the terms "storytelling" or "storyteller;" I much prefer the AD&D term "referee." When I DM, I'm not really telling a story; that implies that I have a more or less rigid plot I've made and the players are going through it, or that I am a narrator that does what is dramatically appropriate rather than what is appropriate by the rules. The term "referee" implies that I set up the world, set up the outlines of a plot (stat some bad guys, "you all meet in a tavern," etc.) and then rule what happens based on PC and NPC actions. An RPG is about gaming together; the DM doesn't have a privileged position or license to twist the rules as he wants just because he's the DM. He certainly has a right to have fun and should have a say in things, because he probably puts in the most effort and is designated as the arbiter of the rules, but that makes him closer to "most equal among equals" rather than the god that some make him out to be.


I heavily agree with you.

Archpaladin Zousha
2011-05-25, 11:34 AM
Which is true, but I think it's more easy for a DM to find players then for a player to find DM's.

Yeah, tell me about it! :smallannoyed:

Kiero
2011-05-25, 11:36 AM
It's fairly hostile to a rather crappy style of GMing that relies on secrecy, illusionism and railroading to get things done. Usually justified as ways for a GM to "protect their plot" or some such rubbish.

hamlet
2011-05-25, 11:40 AM
It's not that the boards are anti-DM, it's that human nature gravitates towards the negative. People rarely come on here posting about how awesome their DMs are, it's far more common to see threads about this problem or that with the DM or another player. Likewise, negative-angled threads (and those with lots of arguing) stick in memory longer.

One sec, putting my other hat on.


Great Modthulhu: Also, moved to Roleplaying Games (General). Burble.

Maybe we should have a thread posting about how great our DM's are. You know, "My DM did something so damned cool last night!!!" kind of dealie rather than the endless parade of people griping about being shot down by the DM, right or wrong.

Inject just a smidgen of positivity into these forums.

The Glyphstone
2011-05-25, 11:41 AM
We've tried. They tend to die off fast, once people run out of good stories to tell.

hamlet
2011-05-25, 11:44 AM
That's really kind of sad.

But certainly lends credence to GIFT.

Archpaladin Zousha
2011-05-25, 11:50 AM
What's GIFT? :smallconfused:

The Glyphstone
2011-05-25, 11:50 AM
It stands for Greater Internet [Censored] Theory, from Penny Arcade.

Normal person + Audience + Anonymity = Total [Censored], basically.

Archpaladin Zousha
2011-05-25, 11:51 AM
The [Censored] being ****wit, I presume?

PairO'Dice Lost
2011-05-25, 11:51 AM
Interesting. Living Greyhawk used to use the term "Judge", for DMs. You didn't DM a LG module, so much as judge it. This was to ensure that most people's experience with the module would be relatively similar. Interesting...

Well, when you say the experience would be "relatively similar" it sounds like you're implying a degree of railroading--obviously there's some involved, since it's a module, but that has a negative connotation when applied to "refereeing" or "judging" games in general. It's important, I think, to draw a distinction between similar game rules (implies impartiality and uniformity of rules, a good thing) and similar game experiences (implies railroading and lack of player agency, a bad thing).

For instance, in one of my games that I've mentioned several times in the Playground, my PCs wanted to find and capture a githyanki Astral ship. To prepare for this, I statted out the ship, not just by saying "here's what a scout ship 'should' have, therefore ta-da it does" but rather by pulling out the Stronghold Builder's Guidebook to see what the 14th level githyanki captain could buy for his personal craft and Stormwrack to look at ship stats. That way, it was easy to rule what happens when the PCs tried to disable or damage it and its components (which they did), and if the PCs managed to capture it (which they did) and decided to turn it into a sapient, highly evil ship o' doom (which they did :smallannoyed:) there would be rules already in place for its current stats and what they could do to upgrade it. I wouldn't say at all that another group would approach this the same way, or even attempt to do that (and if anyone wants to, I feel sorry for your DM), but if they did, I think it's a good thing that mechanically everything would turn out the same way and that the NPCs and ship would be "fair," more or less.

hamlet
2011-05-25, 11:59 AM
The [Censored] being ****wit, I presume?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Online_disinhibition_effect

It's something we can't even hint at here in the playground, really.

But it's an actual psychological phenomenon under study now.

Better explanation is over at TVTropes.org, but I can't link to the article.

The Glyphstone
2011-05-25, 12:06 PM
That's it, basically.

valadil
2011-05-25, 12:26 PM
Another reason why this board might seem anti-GM is that GMing is a skill that requires practice. There's a lot to learn in being a GM.

If a player doesn't know what he's doing, his builds will suck and his characters will lack personality. These are annoying but won't derail a game. Maybe he'll have some social issues like whining when he can't have his way or needing to be the center of attention. These will interfere with a game, but they aren't really game related skills, so they aren't the sort of thing you learn on a gaming message board. I'm not saying that it's impossible for an incompetent player to hurt a game, but that it takes more effort.

OTOH, a bad GM will ruin an otherwise good game. Anything that the GM does wrong will drag things down for the players. So of course players are going to be negative about a GM's flaws. And GMs are going to come here for advice on how to fix those flaws.

Typewriter
2011-05-25, 12:41 PM
This board has a lot of people coming to complain about things their DMs do, and it also has a lot of people who talk themselves up as DM, but when they do so they open themselves to argument about whether or not they're actually good DMs or simply good for their group.

If half the posts about DMs are from players, then most of those are going to be complaints. As someone mentioned earlier, very rarely do people make a topic that says, "My DM is the win, and I only ever have fun with him. I'm going to marry him and have his babies.".

Sometimes you'll see a post that says something like, "My DM is so good, and knows us so well. I was going to do something that was dumb and a waste of time, but he just told me 'no' to save time and effort", which is going to cause people to jump all over that because that's not what many people consider to be a good DM. That DM may be good for that group, but his actions do not portray what everyone says is a good DM.

So let's say that the other half of the posts about DMs are from DMs commenting on themselves. They're usually going to come across as confrontational and/or argumentative. People make threads that say things like, "How to be the best DM", and inside refer to their gaming group as being one of the best because of the way they DM. The majority of posts like these quickly fall into people picking apart that guys DMing style, or at the very least, his attitude.


In other (shorter) words, the board isn't anti-DM, there is simply more reason to discuss the mistakes that DMs make rather than their successes, and that most people who want to say something nice about DMs (themselves or another) usually wind up saying something that directly contradicts anothers perception of what a 'good' DM is thus leading to arguments.

dsmiles
2011-05-25, 12:48 PM
It's not that the boards are anti-DM, it's that human nature gravitates towards the negative. People rarely come on here posting about how awesome their DMs are, it's far more common to see threads about this problem or that with the DM or another player. Likewise, negative-angled threads (and those with lots of arguing) stick in memory longer.
So true. Sad, but the human condition can't really be cured short of an Exterminatus.
Burble.Beware The Glyphstone, my son, the jaws that bite, the claws that catch!

kyoryu
2011-05-25, 12:57 PM
I think there's another aspect to the apparent anti-DM bias.

In my opinion, a good DM is mostly invisible. A DM that's too highly visible is usually such in a bad way, by enforcing (railroading) his will upon the world, etc.

So good DMs tend to produce anecdotes about awesome sessions and the like - great PLAYER stories, while bad DMs produce bad *DM* stories.

FMArthur
2011-05-25, 12:58 PM
A good deal of anti-DM sentiment comes from reading about DMs who impose rigid limitations on which fun toys players are allowed to have, and DMs who try to fix what they regard as broken, but don't understand the system well enough to a) know what's broken at all, and b) know what sort of playstyle they actually encourage with their new rules.

But yeah, the long and short of it is that general DM dickery/ignorance is much more impactful than player dickery/ignorance. People don't go to online forums known for providing advice to start threads about how great their DM is.

hamlet
2011-05-25, 01:01 PM
A good deal of anti-DM sentiment comes from reading about DMs who impose rigid limitations on which fun toys players are allowed to have, and DMs who try to fix what they regard as broken, but don't understand the system well enough to a) know what's broken at all, and b) know what sort of playstyle they actually encourage with their new rules.

But yeah, the long and short of it is that general DM dickery/ignorance is much more impactful than player dickery/ignorance. People don't go to online forums known for providing advice to start threads about how great their DM is.

You just haven't met the right player dickery. I've DMed for a player who could destroy a party within 6 minutes of game start without actually trying. And he does it for fun.

Oddly enough, get him really interested, and he's the best player going. Even slightly bored, though, and he's lethal.

Thinker
2011-05-25, 01:06 PM
It seems to me reading here that this board is very player oriented, and in general is against DMs in that it's very anti-rule 0, people seem to think it's wrong for DMs to keep secrets from their players (essential to running a good campaign) people seem to think it's wrong for a Dm to contradict a rule book (also pretty important for them to be able to do) etc...

I wasn't sure what forum to put this in, but I think it's a question worth exploring.

I don't think anyone is opposed to having people who manage games. That would be a bit silly, though there are some things that might contribute to this perception. The focus of conversation is largely on rules and mechanics. Description, story, and fluff is nice and is important to a game, but those are largely left to the interpretations of the players and aren't really things a reasonable argument can be drawn from. Those aspects of a game can change easily enough and questions about them are generally trivial enough not to matter; who cares if the elf's eyes are brown or green?

Similarly, this also means that rule-0 is largely irrelevant to discussion of mechanics. If someone has a question of how something works, it doesn't matter that the GM can change it to work however (s)he wants. That sort of logic would make any discussion meaningless. We can't use rule-0 or house rules because we need a common basis for discussion unless it is mentioned in the original topic. If I ask how much damage a longsword does, it does not matter that in your game they deal 1d12 damage or that my GM can change it as relevant to the individual campaign; my question really only needs to be answered in the context of the normally understood rule-set.

I'm not sure what you mean by the GM needing to keep secrets. Is it better from a perspective of the story that the players don't know something that their characters would reasonably know? Is it a better game if the players only know as much as their characters? Does it help things if the GM can keep players in the dark? Maybe it does help sometimes, but outside of specific story arcs, I do not think that the players being unknowledgeable about things is especially helpful. Assuming a group of mature players, it generally shouldn't matter how much the players know.

The GM should do his/her best at keeping things consistent with the agreed upon rule set. This applies to house rules or the base mechanics for the game. If it would take too long to look something up or it becomes disruptive, it makes sense to keep things moving by making a decision and reevaluate later if you and your group prefers the new way or the original way.

All games are first and foremost about having fun. A gripping story can be a part of that, but is not the most important part of any game. It is hard to have fun without consistency and without proper knowledge.

I say all of these things as someone who primarily GMs games using various systems.

Gamer Girl
2011-05-25, 01:09 PM
It seems to me reading here that this board is very player oriented, and in general is against DMs in that it's very anti-rule 0, people seem to think it's wrong for DMs to keep secrets from their players (essential to running a good campaign) people seem to think it's wrong for a Dm to contradict a rule book (also pretty important for them to be able to do) etc...

I wasn't sure what forum to put this in, but I think it's a question worth exploring.

I'd say the board is a bit anti-DM. Dm's are seen as 'the enemy' by players and players outnumber DMs 5 to 1.


Against rule 0 is a bit tricky. First we have to judge things by the core rules we all share, so that has an effect. But mostly many Dms are, a bit crazy when it comes to rules. You can find lots of crazy examples with a search.


The rules vs the DM is an old argument. In older D&D such as 1/2E the DM was the absolute authority on the game world and the rules and everything about the game. Once you get to 3/4 E the idea is that everyone is just an equal player in the game and subject to the same rules. Older D&D said thought out the books that 'this is your own game, do whatever you want' and things like 'use some rules, don't use others' and 'the rules are just suggestions'. In newer D&D says nothing like that and the idea is that the rules are carved in stone and you must use them.

Yukitsu
2011-05-25, 01:11 PM
It seems to me reading here that this board is very player oriented, and in general is against DMs in that it's very anti-rule 0, people seem to think it's wrong for DMs to keep secrets from their players (essential to running a good campaign) people seem to think it's wrong for a Dm to contradict a rule book (also pretty important for them to be able to do) etc...

I wasn't sure what forum to put this in, but I think it's a question worth exploring.

I don't think it's so much that I'm "anti-DM" since I follow those principles when I'm in the DM chair. But I am one of the vocal advocates that DMs should have no particular authority over the game beyond creation of the setting and scenarios.

Just_Ice
2011-05-25, 01:13 PM
I didn't think it was, but I guess so, upon further consideration. A lot of responses would suddenly make more sense. Still, the whole "more players than DMs" probably has much to do with it.

All players should DM at least once. It'd sort a lot of things out.

Yora
2011-05-25, 01:19 PM
RAW stands for Rules As Written, taking the text of the rulebooks in as literal a way as you can. All numbers, no fluff getting in the way.

Incidentally, I don't hate DMs and their actions. I'm more frustrated by the fact that I'm forced to DM games that I want to play in because nobody else seems interested. :smallfrown:

When everyone has their own house rules and explains things using those house rules to other people who use different house rules, it's complete chaos and most advice would be completely useless. So to have some comon basis on which to make assumptions about what might work in someone elses game, it's customary to assume that the rules in all games are exactly as in the books, unless specifically stated otherwise.
This has the side effect that people usually don't care about your house rules and other things and only want suggestions by RAW, because otherwise it won't be of any help to them.
And while I'm a great fan of house rules and use a lot in my games myself, I'm still highly reluctant to use any house rules proposed by other people. I either stick to raw, or come up with a house rule myself that I think fits the best into the overall game. I'm very much pro house rules and rule 0, but I still prefer to keep any discussions to RAW. (Other peoples house rules are usually garbage. :smallwink: )

Oracle_Hunter
2011-05-25, 01:34 PM
Heh.

Speaking about this board as a single entity is troublesome at best. Are we pro-DM or pro-Player? Pro-4e or Pro-3e? Pro-Chocolate or Pro-Strawberry? :smallcool:

I imagine each Poster sees a different "board" depending on the threads they visit and the threads they start. For example, I find this board to be one that is generally helpful and civilized, where any game-related question will receive a useful response in time. Oh sure, there are people who enjoy dissension and conflict but I know I can ignore threads where they come up and Ignore people who do nothing but sew discord.

All I can say is that if you ask a question here, you will get an answer. If the answer is not the one you like then you can either ignore it, or consider it and move on.

Dusk Eclipse
2011-05-25, 01:38 PM
Heh.

Speaking about this board as a single entity is troublesome at best. Are we pro-DM or pro-Player? Pro-4e or Pro-3e? Pro-Chocolate or Pro-Strawberry? :smallcool:

I imagine each Poster sees a different "board" depending on the threads they visit and the threads they start. For example, I find this board to be one that is generally helpful and civilized, where any game-related question will receive a useful response in time. Oh sure, there are people who enjoy dissension and conflict but I know I can ignore threads where they come up and Ignore people who do nothing but sew discord.

All I can say is that if you ask a question here, you will get an answer. If the answer is not the one you like then you can either ignore it, or consider it and move on.

Neither, we are pro-vanilla :smalltongue:

I don't have anything useful to contribute, shameful I know

dsmiles
2011-05-25, 01:39 PM
All I can say is that if you ask a question here, you will get an answer. If the answer is not the one you like then you can either ignore it, or consider it and move on.Best advice all day.

I can't count how many time's I've seen "Help me with this build" threads where the OP gives some simple guidelines (such as a certain race/class combination), and they're totally ignored by the responders who blatantly disregard the OP's guidelines.

Glimbur
2011-05-25, 01:47 PM
Yeah, tell me about it! :smallannoyed:

Sometimes it is troublesome to find good players. Also, I usually find myself as not only DM but also lead organizer, which means juggling schedules and finding a regular time to run as well as a place. That's nontrivial.

Archpaladin Zousha
2011-05-25, 01:53 PM
Sometimes it is troublesome to find good players. Also, I usually find myself as not only DM but also lead organizer, which means juggling schedules and finding a regular time to run as well as a place. That's nontrivial.

I meant on these boards. :smallsigh:

obliged_salmon
2011-05-25, 02:26 PM
I think OP might be conflating "anti-DM" with "anti-traditional DM powers/roles." Also, I'd argue that the majority of people I've seen who are "anti-traditional DM powers/roles," such as myself, are people who DO DM frequently. Therefore, turning it into a player vs. DM situation is misleading.

OP thinks that rule 0, secret-keeping, and contradicting the rulebook are essential to the role of DM. Several game systems posit that these things are to be avoided at all costs when playing that game (i.e. Burning Wheel, Dogs in the Vinyard, InSpectres). Those games are not "anti-DM," they're "anti-traditional DM powers/roles."

Knaight
2011-05-25, 02:44 PM
I'd say the board is a bit anti-DM. Dm's are seen as 'the enemy' by players and players outnumber DMs 5 to 1.


This is inaccurate as a general statement in pretty much every way. GMs being seen as "the enemy" is indicative of a particular style, and by no means is it the dominant one. The GM-player line is one of a particular game, full time GMs and full time players exist, but often people GM in one game, play in another, or even alternate GMs during a single game. Sure, people tend towards one more than the other, but its not as if one is only a GM or only a player. Moreover assuming that the 6 person, 1 GM group is standard is stretching it, groups as small as 3 or 4 are common, and not every game even has distinct player-GM roles.

oxybe
2011-05-25, 02:54 PM
i'll +1 tinker's post.

most people are against bad GMs and one hallmark of the bad GM is use of rule 0 without considering how it affects the game.

Rule 0 exists to allow the GM to fix corner cases in the rules, the odd happenstance that the devs didn't think of, and give the game a tweak and pinch of personal flair.

this is all fine and i have no problems with it. i do it myself and i expect others to do the same.

it's when these things are done without any thought on how it'll affect the rest of the game (see : "low magic" games where you're fighting damage reducing monsters with no way to compensate for the lack of magical gear) or things that seem alright on first glance but have potential to be horrible for PCs (crit fumble charts, for example, are "fair" since they occur with same frequency between PCs and Monsters, but each individual Monster generally has a lifespan of one scene while PCs are supposed to last quite a bit longer...).

remember that the game part in RPG itself is a system for task resolution. players read up on it and expect the game to work as written, more or less. arriving at a session and finding out it's been reworked very hard, to the point where it plays VERY differently then the expected norm is jarring. i've had it done before and it was never a pleasant occurrence.

other issues we tend to have is withholding information that should be available or obfuscating things that shouldn't be obfuscated.

i'll level with you all: I've never lived in Toril. for all my life i've lived on Earth. my PC however, has lived in Toril. he knows the local cultures and taboos. he knows how people react to certain things. he knows the local fauna and flora.

a GM should relay any and all relevant information to the player since how else can he make a decision?

now, i'm not advocation telling the players who the murderer is right from the get go or the exact details of the BBEG's plans, but i know what's a social faux pas in my real-life society. my character knows what is one in his.

penalizing a player for not knowing that bowing to the orc chieftain is a sign that you think he's so weak you can show him the back of your unguarded neck and not worry. especially if his PC is a trader living in the border areas and deals with the orcs on a regular basis.

on a similar topic is suddenly changing the way the world works without letting players know. if the players decide they're going troll hunting after observing trolls being hurt by fire & acid based weaponry (and thus stocking up on it), then having the trolls suddenly be not hurt by it that's jarring.

people are against bad & dishonest GMs. i've found this to be the same regardless of game, be it D&D, WoD, GURPS, etc...

Keld Denar
2011-05-25, 02:57 PM
I can't count how many time's I've seen "Help me with this build" threads where the OP gives some simple guidelines (such as a certain race/class combination), and they're totally ignored by the responders who blatantly disregard the OP's guidelines.

Eh, you get what you pay for...oh, right...

dsmiles
2011-05-25, 03:13 PM
Eh, you get what you pay for...oh, right...Hey, it's never happened to me. I'm 1 for 1 on getting good build advice. :smalltongue:

Archpaladin Zousha
2011-05-25, 03:17 PM
Hey, it's never happened to me. I'm 1 for 1 on getting good build advice. :smalltongue:

You're lucky. Most of the time I ask for build advice people just ignore me. :smallsigh:

Keld Denar
2011-05-25, 03:23 PM
Hush hush, I put together that absolutely brilliant Paladin/DivineCrusader build together for you about 2 years ago...

Starwulf
2011-05-25, 03:25 PM
I didn't think it was, but I guess so, upon further consideration. A lot of responses would suddenly make more sense. Still, the whole "more players than DMs" probably has much to do with it.

All players should DM at least once. It'd sort a lot of things out.

I actually dislike that last line of thought. Not every player has the patience, or the creativity to become a DM. I saw some someone in a game I'm hoping to get picked for, and in his sig, he has a list of things that he hates, and one of them is "Players who have never tried to DM". That kind of attitude pisses me off royally. Why does every player have to DM? Can't we just remain happy players? I guess thats because I have the attitude that unless proven otherwise, all DMs are great and friendly, and I will give a lot of leniency towards DMs that I wouldn't extend to fellow players, because I realize how stressful being a DM is. I doubt I"ll ever DM a game. I have the creativity for it, but I damn well don't have the patience to put up with some of the shenanigans I see from other players, not to mention dealing with people who get pissed off that a DM doesn't have this book, or that book, or just doesn't want to allow ToB or some other thing. Can't count how many times on these forums I've seen people refuse to give a game a chance just because ToB isn't allowed. Seems to me, that they are probably missing out on some great games with awesome storyline/plots.

Wow, that ended up being a bit more ranty then I had intended. Ahh well.

TL:DR Not everyone is cut out to be a DM, don't hate on those of us who just want to play.

valadil
2011-05-25, 03:32 PM
I have the creativity for it, but I damn well don't have the patience to put up with some of the shenanigans I see from other players, not to mention dealing with people who get pissed off that a DM doesn't have this book, or that book, or just doesn't want to allow ToB or some other thing.

Not all players have the empathy to figure this out without DMing. I think those players would be better off with a couple sessions at the other side of the table.

Archpaladin Zousha
2011-05-25, 03:34 PM
Hush hush, I put together that absolutely brilliant Paladin/DivineCrusader build together for you about 2 years ago...

Yeah, but that was two years ago. I've changed editions twice now (first to 4e and then back to 3.5 in a sense with Pathfinder) and am looking for stuff about different versions of different classes now. :smallfrown:

Knaight
2011-05-25, 03:37 PM
I actually dislike that last line of thought. Not every player has the patience, or the creativity to become a DM.

Its really not that difficult, though certain systems make the mechanical side harder*. Sure, its a skill, and without practice your GMing isn't going to be very good, but it is hardly some unattainable trait possessed only by certain people.

*I include every edition of D&D in this, particularly 3rd and 4th.

Keld Denar
2011-05-25, 03:40 PM
I think that that PoV has a lot similar to "walking in someone else's shoes". Its easy to say "X DM is crappy", or "Y DM doesn't make good enough maps", or "Z DM doesn't write descriptions of places and events that would make the ghost of Robert Jordan fall asleep", when you've never tried to do it. Not everyone comes with a built in respect for people who do things that take hard work. Sometimes spending an afternoon shoveling manure makes you appreciate just how much you are paying the guy to clean out your barn.

Thus his PoV about "don't complain about your DM, hes probably doing the best he can" holds because until you've experienced how much time it takes, its easy to point at someone and say "you're lazy because you don't have 700 pregenerated NPCs and 300 cities for us to interact with already made up". When you've actually walked that road yourself, and seen how bumpy it can be, its easier to cut someone else some slack for occasional slip-ups.

Archpaladin Zousha
2011-05-25, 03:42 PM
That's my problem. I wanna get OFF that bumpy road, but no one has any room for me as a player, and if I want to play in a particular Adventure Path or something I can get plenty of other players who are interested, but no one wants to DM for us. :smallfrown:

Oracle_Hunter
2011-05-25, 03:45 PM
I think that that PoV has a lot similar to "walking in someone else's shoes". Its easy to say "X DM is crappy", or "Y DM doesn't make good enough maps", or "Z DM doesn't write descriptions of places and events that would make the ghost of Robert Jordan fall asleep", when you've never tried to do it. Not everyone comes with a built in respect for people who do things that take hard work. Sometimes spending an afternoon shoveling manure makes you appreciate just how much you are paying the guy to clean out your barn.

Thus his PoV about "don't complain about your DM, hes probably doing the best he can" holds because until you've experienced how much time it takes, its easy to point at someone and say "you're lazy because you don't have 700 pregenerated NPCs and 300 cities for us to interact with already made up". When you've actually walked that road yourself, and seen how bumpy it can be, its easier to cut someone else some slack for occasional slip-ups.
Eh, I've never found the Let's See YOU Do Better (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/Ptitlecl8xukzuauw1?from=Main.LetsSeeYOUDoBetter) ethos to be particularly productive. I encourage my Players to try running a game (even just a module) so that they can try it out and maybe become Real DMs themselves. Few do, but every new DM I "train" is another DM who can run games for me :smallbiggrin:

That said, there is a special kind of satisfaction to hear a Player-turned-DM complain about characters in his game and then to point out times when he did the very same thing in your game :smallamused:

Knaight
2011-05-25, 03:49 PM
Thus his PoV about "don't complain about your DM, hes probably doing the best he can" holds because until you've experienced how much time it takes, its easy to point at someone and say "you're lazy because you don't have 700 pregenerated NPCs and 300 cities for us to interact with already made up". When you've actually walked that road yourself, and seen how bumpy it can be, its easier to cut someone else some slack for occasional slip-ups.

I disagree entirely. I mostly GM, and because of that I have a pretty solid understanding of the tricks of the trade. As such, I see what is going on behind the scenes, and can see when people really don't have things under control at all. For those that only play, many screw ups are invisible, and they certainly don't see what is going on and know intuitively a better way to handle things. Its hard to cut someone slack when they fail to do something you can do, particularly when they, by all rights, should be able to do it. Plus, when you know how to do things well, it just grates to see them done poorly.

Now, if someone who usually GMs is playing under a GM who has everything under control at least as well as they do, its not an issue, but if an experienced GM is playing under a newbie refraining from backseat GMing is difficult.

Starwulf
2011-05-25, 03:52 PM
I think that that PoV has a lot similar to "walking in someone else's shoes". Its easy to say "X DM is crappy", or "Y DM doesn't make good enough maps", or "Z DM doesn't write descriptions of places and events that would make the ghost of Robert Jordan fall asleep", when you've never tried to do it. Not everyone comes with a built in respect for people who do things that take hard work. Sometimes spending an afternoon shoveling manure makes you appreciate just how much you are paying the guy to clean out your barn.

Thus his PoV about "don't complain about your DM, hes probably doing the best he can" holds because until you've experienced how much time it takes, its easy to point at someone and say "you're lazy because you don't have 700 pregenerated NPCs and 300 cities for us to interact with already made up". When you've actually walked that road yourself, and seen how bumpy it can be, its easier to cut someone else some slack for occasional slip-ups.

I guess I just don't see how players can't have some natural sympathy/empathy for a DM. Seems silly to always think of every DM you come across as a robot who has nothing else to do other then design some fantastical awesome adventure for you and your group. I guess maybe it's just an Being Older brings Wisdom kinda thing.

Anyways @Knaight, by patience, I didn't mean the mechanical side, I meant the patience to deal with 3-5 other people who all want different things, who probably won't even agree with each other, let alone the things I want to happen in the game. I just don't have the right temperament to become a DM. If I tried it and my players started challenging me on things before the campaign even got started, I'd tell em to **** off(I put the asterisks in myself btw) and just stop posting on that thread. I"m perfectly friendly and tolerant as a player, but as a DM, I would have certain things I'd allow, and things I wouldn't, and if people started whining about that, I'd be po'ed quickly.

Knaight
2011-05-25, 03:59 PM
Anyways @Knaight, by patience, I didn't mean the mechanical side, I meant the patience to deal with 3-5 other people who all want different things, who probably won't even agree with each other, let alone the things I want to happen in the game. I just don't have the right temperament to become a DM. If I tried it and my players started challenging me on things before the campaign even got started, I'd tell em to **** off(I put the asterisks in myself btw) and just stop posting on that thread. I"m perfectly friendly and tolerant as a player, but as a DM, I would have certain things I'd allow, and things I wouldn't, and if people started whining about that, I'd be po'ed quickly.

See, my point is that that everything but the mechanical side there is a certain set of core, learn-able skills, that aren't really all that tricky to pick up. Operating within these naturally develops them, and there isn't really a problem. The issue is, you have to do this while juggling a certain amount on the mechanical side, and its that mechanical side that is what causes problems. Sure, dealing with certain people as players is a pain, but the solution there is to not play with those people.

Just_Ice
2011-05-25, 04:00 PM
A lot of words

I'm saying this because of that stuff, Starwulf. Take a load off the DM's back for once. Nobody likes putting up with players, and players that have DMed tend to be quite a bit less annoying. Once you have DMed, you're probably going to complain half as much.

The best session I ever played was completely comprised of players that had DMed before. Smooth as silk, everyone worked together and had a backstory, and the DM had a really good time, too.

Starwulf
2011-05-25, 04:09 PM
I'm saying this because of that stuff, Starwulf. Take a load off the DM's back for once. Nobody likes putting up with players, and players that have DMed tend to be quite a bit less annoying. Once you have DMed, you're probably going to complain half as much.

The best session I ever played was completely comprised of players that had DMed before. Smooth as silk, everyone worked together and had a backstory, and the DM had a really good time, too.

Ehh, I'm just truly not really interested in DMing. I'm a parent of two kids(girls), that's enough stress in my life. I'm perfectly content with being a player(hopefully a good one!) that doesn't give his current DM problems, besides maybe confounding his plot once in a while by doing something un-expected.. What goes on behind the scenes is a mystery that I'm content with never revealing. If that makes me a bad person as I've seen implied by people(none of you all, at least, not thus far, but others), so be it. I truly believe some people just are not cut out to be DMs, for a multitude of reasons.

Edit: Also, I don't complain at all anyways. I fill out my character sheets according to DM guidelines, I create my backstory as short or long as the DM wants, and I am happy that the DM is nice enough to offer to DM us.

Just_Ice
2011-05-25, 04:19 PM
Ehh, I'm just truly not really interested in DMing. I'm a parent of two kids(girls), that's enough stress in my life. I'm perfectly content with being a player(hopefully a good one!) that doesn't give his current DM problems, besides maybe confounding his plot once in a while by doing something un-expected.. What goes on behind the scenes is a mystery that I'm content with never revealing. If that makes me a bad person as I've seen implied by people(none of you all, at least, not thus far, but others), so be it. I truly believe some people just are not cut out to be DMs, for a multitude of reasons.

Edit: Also, I don't complain at all anyways. I fill out my character sheets according to DM guidelines, I create my backstory as short or long as the DM wants, and I am happy that the DM is nice enough to offer to DM us.

Whatever floats your boat. What happens "behind the scenes" is inelegant at best. Still, I don't think it's much to ask for someone to DM one session. I kind of feel you think I'm asking for an entire campaign, which is actually beyond the scope of most D&D (I've only been in two contained adventures that actually reached their conclusions, and I was DMing one).

If your DM would rather DM every time, though, stick with them like glue.

Starwulf
2011-05-25, 04:26 PM
Whatever floats your boat. What happens "behind the scenes" is inelegant at best. Still, I don't think it's much to ask for someone to DM one session. I kind of feel you think I'm asking for an entire campaign, which is actually beyond the scope of most D&D (I've only been in two contained adventures that actually reached their conclusions, and I was DMing one).

If your DM would rather DM every time, though, stick with them like glue.

Ahh, see I don't game in RL because there are no groups within 30 mile radius of me >< The issue with living on top of a mountain in the middle of nowhere. No, I only play here on the boards, where there is a large(though not in-exhaustible) supply of DMs. Regardless, I do think it's to much to ask of some people, and I think looking down on those who don't want to DM is ridiculous. Even a small "module" requires effort in the form of planning how to keep things on the rails of the module, finding players, dealing with the requests/demands to have certain things allowed, reviewing character sheets, deciding how to handle starting attributes, what level to start off with, so on and so forth. I'm not saying I personally will NEVER DM, though I doubt I will, I'm just saying that it's ignorant to expect every person who plays Tabletop games to DM a game/module at least once in their career.

Godskook
2011-05-25, 04:34 PM
Speaking as guy who got interested in D&D from reading OotS, and then joined the forums, joined pbps here, and then finally started DMing my own game, I'd say that these boards are rather pro-DM. In fact, I'd say the only reason I could walk campaign as solo-DM without any face-2-face tabletop experience is cause of the resources and advice I learned here.

Coidzor
2011-05-25, 04:38 PM
Well, I'm definitely against the idea that the DM has a right to derive enjoyment from the game at the expense of the players' enjoyment, since I see it as rather pointlessly self-destructive to the hobby as a whole.

As for DMs themselves, well, this actually applies to people in general, I hate people who act as though they have a special mandate to act in the way that they do and that feel they can afford to act imperiously. Being talked down to really raises my hackles, especially if it's someone that I don't already recognize as a superior or someone that is ostensibly supposed to be my friend or at least on friendly terms with me and I they.

Related to that, I don't really see it as a good sign if a DM is unwilling to accept input from players or work with them or how anyone could see it as anything but a bad sign.

Incanur
2011-05-25, 04:55 PM
Anti-DM? Is that like an antipaladin? Sounds intriguing.

dsmiles
2011-05-25, 05:16 PM
I think the Slayers' Guide to Dungeon Masters could be of use here. :smalltongue:

The Glyphstone
2011-05-25, 05:45 PM
I think the Slayers' Guide to Dungeon Masters could be of use here. :smalltongue:

That's kinda harsh. Yelling at your DM and leaving their game is all you really need to do - slaying them will probably get you jail time.White text sneak attack. Yes, I know what Slayers is.

dsmiles
2011-05-25, 06:05 PM
That's kinda harsh. Yelling at your DM and leaving their game is all you really need to do - slaying them will probably get you jail time.White text sneak attack. Yes, I know what Slayers is.
No, really. There's a Slayer's Guide to Dungeon Masters, which I thought I had. There's also a Slayer's Guide to Rules Lawyers, which I do have. They're part of the Slayer's Guide to (insert monster here) series. Mongoose Publishing.

Katana_Geldar
2011-05-25, 06:39 PM
Well, I'm definitely against the idea that the DM has a right to derive enjoyment from the game at the expense of the players' enjoyment, since I see it as rather pointlessly self-destructive to the hobby as a whole.

Except when you play, Paranoia. :smallbiggrin:

The Glyphstone
2011-05-25, 06:45 PM
No, really. There's a Slayer's Guide to Dungeon Masters, which I thought I had. There's also a Slayer's Guide to Rules Lawyers, which I do have. They're part of the Slayer's Guide to (insert monster here) series. Mongoose Publishing.

I...stand corrected.

dsmiles
2011-05-25, 06:48 PM
I...stand corrected.
They're actually (the serious ones, not the comedic ones) my favorite 3rd party supplement for 3.5e. If you're still playing 3.5, you should check them out.

Katana_Geldar
2011-05-25, 06:53 PM
Backseat GMing is hard not to do, but you need to remember to cut the GM some slack. The last thing an inexperienced GM probably needs is you swinging in and overruling them. It's better to take them aside after the game and ask how they think it went, then explain some thing they can do better.

It doesn't always work though, one of my players GMs occassionally and I haven't managed to get it through her head that she goes between railroading and not doing anything at all. I resent the GM poking me on the shoulder, providing plot direction when they think we haven't been moving fast enough towards it. Most of the time we were roleplaying and enjoying the game!

One time in Star Wars, we took our ship into unknown space to get away from the GM! He came after us in a star destroyer.

Cadian 9th
2011-05-25, 07:21 PM
As a DM I do about 5 minutes prep time, usually on the way to a friend's place. I find that trying to do houserules is actually quite hard, and tends to just make things complicated and annoy players. However, a few houserules aren't out of place, and sometimes you need to make some for things not covered where anyone can remember. Certainly, houserules which try and "balance" 3.5 almost invariably annoy the vocal players on these boards.

I tend to hang about the optimization and numbers game, tinkering with builds and debating rules. Unfortunately, DMs I've found tend to either be really odd, with wierd misconceptions about the game and their own " spin " on it, or just awesome. I've never played RL, I always DM, so I don't have much experience under DMs.

DMs attract flak on these boards because the ones we tend to hear about are stepping in the way of our tinkering because it's "unbalanced" or "doesn't float hir boot". They're like the cops breaking up a party just when it's hitting the sweet spot of fun. Hence, when these boards discuss DMs, it's generally in a negative light.

navar100
2011-05-25, 07:22 PM
It seems to me reading here that this board is very player oriented, and in general is against DMs in that it's very anti-rule 0, people seem to think it's wrong for DMs to keep secrets from their players (essential to running a good campaign) people seem to think it's wrong for a Dm to contradict a rule book (also pretty important for them to be able to do) etc...

I wasn't sure what forum to put this in, but I think it's a question worth exploring.

I'm anti-DMs who hate their players. This type of DM is one who can't stand it that a player character is "powerful", can do something nifty, is really good at a particular shtick, has an 18 in an ability score at level 1, or otherwise do something more than "I attack with my sword". These DMs make the PC's life miserable. They are always poor and no NPC altruisitcally helps them. NPCs tend to be all higher level, richer, more powerful, or otherwise superior than the party in every way, except for the no-name extras who might as well be furniture. Magic items are few to non-existant. Healing is a chore. At least one character dies a game session. Player ingenuity is discouraged. After a real world year of playing time one day a week you just reached level 3.

Katana_Geldar
2011-05-25, 07:28 PM
Navar, players being too powerful trips my instinct for the simple reason that it makes them harder to challenge compared to other players who might not be so overpowered.

Said player usually thinks that I have to customise the game to him, to his story and what he wants his character to do. I have to stop myself from screaming "It's not all about you!" sometimes.

Players usually just have to think about their characters, the DM has to consider everyone and make sure the game is fun for all, not just one player.

This is why I ask my players backstories to be rather vague, that way they can be built into the game rather than the other way around.

Tyndmyr
2011-05-26, 10:46 AM
It seems to me reading here that this board is very player oriented, and in general is against DMs in that it's very anti-rule 0, people seem to think it's wrong for DMs to keep secrets from their players (essential to running a good campaign) people seem to think it's wrong for a Dm to contradict a rule book (also pretty important for them to be able to do) etc...

I wasn't sure what forum to put this in, but I think it's a question worth exploring.

Anti-rule zero is not the same as being anti-DM.

Your opinions are about HOW to DM. Not all DMs have the same opinions you do on these topics. I disagree with a number of them, and I am a DM. A LOT of the people on these boards are DMs. They don't even agree with each other.

So no, the board isn't particularly anti-DM. There just happens to be people that prefer a different style of DMing than you do.

Bagelz
2011-05-26, 11:50 AM
Anti-rule zero is not the same as being anti-DM.

^this

also there are, lets guess 5 times as many players as there are gms/dms/storytellers, many of whom are both, so any public venue is going have a player bias.

secondly, you will never see a post about a player who is content with the way their gm is running their game. (search for posts on "help, my dm is good, what do i do?!") That doesn't mean the people here don't like gms, you just don't see posts about it.

The other topic in this thread: RAW (or less frequently RAI). We need common ground. Rules as written are the only common ground between them, because anything else is by definition house-ruled. And in that case we can't help you, because we aren't your house. We are probably not all rules lawyers (though I admit I do tend to be) but if you ask a rules question, all we can tell you is what the rules (as written) say, or what common interpretations are, or if you're lucky what house rules we like (but then you've got to pass the house rule by everyone else in your game).

navar100
2011-05-26, 06:25 PM
Navar, players being too powerful trips my instinct for the simple reason that it makes them harder to challenge compared to other players who might not be so overpowered.

Said player usually thinks that I have to customise the game to him, to his story and what he wants his character to do. I have to stop myself from screaming "It's not all about you!" sometimes.

Players usually just have to think about their characters, the DM has to consider everyone and make sure the game is fun for all, not just one player.

This is why I ask my players backstories to be rather vague, that way they can be built into the game rather than the other way around.

Players have their own responsibilities. They need to create a character that does not "Win D&D" (no Pun-Pun offspring), gets along with other players (paladin and rogue could be best pals), and fits within the theme of the campaign (no "chaotic neutral" pirate ninja in a campaign of holy order of philanthropists).

However, if a DM cries "Munchkin!" because I happen to have a 1st level character with an 18 and no score below 10, that's a DM who hates his players.

Quietus
2011-05-26, 07:39 PM
Eh, I've never found the Let's See YOU Do Better (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/Ptitlecl8xukzuauw1?from=Main.LetsSeeYOUDoBetter) ethos to be particularly productive. I encourage my Players to try running a game (even just a module) so that they can try it out and maybe become Real DMs themselves. Few do, but every new DM I "train" is another DM who can run games for me :smallbiggrin:

That said, there is a special kind of satisfaction to hear a Player-turned-DM complain about characters in his game and then to point out times when he did the very same thing in your game :smallamused:

I wouldn't say that asking everyone to have tried DMing to have anything to do with a "Let's See YOU Do Better" mindset. Not all players need to have tried DMing, either. However, it's a common thing that problem players are also people who have never attempted to DM. They expect something from the guy running the game that's completely unreasonable, because for whatever reason, they haven't got any empathy for where he stands in that situation, and they've never had to experience it themselves.

In that case, yes, asking them to step up and DM for a couple sessions can show them just how much work the DM does, and how their actions are problematic. If a player only wants to play, but is understanding of how much effort the DM has to put in, that isn't a problem.

dsmiles
2011-05-26, 07:47 PM
In that case, yes, asking them to step up and DM for a couple sessions can show them just how much work the DM does, and how their actions are problematic. If a player only wants to play, but is understanding of how much effort the DM has to put in, that isn't a problem.Having tried this with a problem player (for whom I was the problem player, after convincing him to DM a session), I can say that it's worked 100% of the time for me. :smalltongue:

He asked me, the next morning, "How do you do it?" He was never a problem player again.

Quietus
2011-05-26, 08:29 PM
Having tried this with a problem player (for whom I was the problem player, after convincing him to DM a session), I can say that it's worked 100% of the time for me. :smalltongue:

He asked me, the next morning, "How do you do it?" He was never a problem player again.

Precisely. In some cases, problem players simply don't understand what the problem is. A session or two in the hotseat teaches them very quickly just how many balls the DM is juggling at any given time. Hardly necessary for everyone, but it's a good tool to have available.

Nero24200
2011-05-27, 04:26 AM
I do get a sense of Anti-DM from this forum, though I can understand it. If player exploits the rules it's easy for a DM (or at least easier) for a DM to shut the character down.

On the other hand if a DM starts to abuse his power theres little the PC's can do. It requires heavy OOC action to resolve and some DM's can be pretty stubborn.

Killer Angel
2011-05-27, 04:35 AM
Anti-rule zero is not the same as being anti-DM.


Indeed. And we have on almost a regular basis, threads regarding things like "pro Vs Against rule 0", or "pro Vs against fudging", and so on, with different DMs arguing.

Comet
2011-05-27, 04:37 AM
On the other hand if a DM starts to abuse his power theres little the PC's can do. It requires heavy OOC action to resolve and some DM's can be pretty stubborn.

Disagree. The GM is only human and OOC action is not something to be afraid of. It's only a matter of saying "hey, GM, you're doing it wrong" in less harsh words. If he's a normal, sensible human being he will adjust. If not, well, it's not a matter of him being a bad GM but he's certainly being a bad person. That happens.

On the topic of the helpfulness of a player trying out GMing: I find the opposite to be true, as well. At first I did nothing but GM. Now that I have also played in quite a few sessions, I find myself familiar with the needs of players in a much more concrete manner. RPGs are a group activity and it would be ideal if everyone was familiar with what everyone else was looking for in the game and how those needs could be met during the game. The less speculating involved, the better.

Tyndmyr
2011-05-27, 07:56 AM
I wouldn't say that asking everyone to have tried DMing to have anything to do with a "Let's See YOU Do Better" mindset. Not all players need to have tried DMing, either. However, it's a common thing that problem players are also people who have never attempted to DM. They expect something from the guy running the game that's completely unreasonable, because for whatever reason, they haven't got any empathy for where he stands in that situation, and they've never had to experience it themselves.

In that case, yes, asking them to step up and DM for a couple sessions can show them just how much work the DM does, and how their actions are problematic. If a player only wants to play, but is understanding of how much effort the DM has to put in, that isn't a problem.

I find that when problem players DO dm, they tend to also be problem dms. After all, if you can't get along with everyone else as a player, giving that person power rarely helps the situation. Again, this is just in my experience. Truly problem players tend to be so because of an intrapersonal issue or three.

I do support having more players at least get their feet wet as a DM...I feel it's best for everyone to experience both sides at least a little bit, but some people just don't have interest in DMing. It's the same as encouraging everyone to try a variety of systems. A broader experience is extremely helpful in understanding how and why things work as they do, and what needs to be changed in a given system.


Indeed. And we have on almost a regular basis, threads regarding things like "pro Vs Against rule 0", or "pro Vs against fudging", and so on, with different DMs arguing.

Yeah, I've participated in a few of these. I think the best conclusion that can be drawn on such topics is that DMs are very divided over them. These threads get ridiculously lengthy, and sometimes heated.

dsmiles
2011-05-27, 12:30 PM
I believe that Pistachio is an under represented flavor here. :smallbiggrin:

oxybe
2011-05-27, 12:44 PM
the utter lack of cookie dough could lead one to believe there is a hidden agenda at work... :shiftyeyes:

Vknight
2011-05-27, 08:57 PM
the utter lack of cookie dough could lead one to believe there is a hidden agenda at work... :shiftyeyes:

I agree but what of Mint?

Kaun
2011-05-30, 08:53 PM
I GM far more then i play and thats the way i prefer it. I have been on these forums for a while now and they are mostly DM friendly.

Rule 0 how ever is just one of those subjects.

There is no real point in arguing about it because im still yet to see anybodys opinion changed in a thread.

Its like politics, religion and alignement definitions; Best not talked about in polite circles.:smallbiggrin:

Welknair
2011-05-31, 12:49 AM
*Ahem*

+1 DM.

Galathir
2011-06-04, 11:10 PM
I almost exclusively DM, partly because I don't know other people who are comfortable as DM, but mostly because I love DMing. However, I think there is a very simple reason why rule 0 is not really mentioned or endorsed in the forums. In order for a group of otherwise unrelated people to discuss something, there needs to be some common ground and a framework on which to base the discussion. RAW provides a basis that is the same for all of us. A wizard can cast spell X and do Y, and we all know what that means. If someone asks whether class A or class B is better suited for a particular task, we can offer our opinions as long as we are all working off the same page. But throw in rule 0, and suddenly there is a variable that isn't the same for everyone. There is no longer common ground, and everything becomes much more situational and reliant on opinion. There is certainly nothing wrong with that, but it does make it much harder to discuss a topic.

And ultimately, the use of rule 0 is a personal decision and will vary from group to group. Some DMs use it frequently, and others never use it, but regardless, it is much more comfortable to discuss things that are (usually) laid out in black and white.

onthetown
2011-06-05, 08:53 AM
Yes, DMs suck. We all hate them. They ruin the game! Can't play with them, can't play without them!

Seriously though, that's a pretty generalized statement. Anything involving a Rule 0 discussion ends up in argument between players and DMs.

dsmiles
2011-06-05, 08:54 AM
Anything involving a Rule 0 discussion ends up in argument between players and DMs.
...and between DM's who use it and DM's who won't.

PersonMan
2011-06-05, 09:47 AM
...and between DM's who use it and DM's who won't.

...and between players who like it and players who don't.

You can also bet that somewhere, someone who has never played the game is arguing for Rule 0 against someone who has also never played the game is arguing who is against it.

dsmiles
2011-06-05, 11:14 AM
You can also bet that somewhere, someone who has never played the game is arguing for Rule 0 against someone who has also never played the game is arguing who is against it.
Since I only bet on sure things, I'd take that bet. :smalltongue:

Yuki Akuma
2011-06-05, 08:39 PM
*Ahem*

+1 DM.

Oh lord, masterworked DMs are bad enough, and you went and gave one an enhancement bonus?

The Glyphstone
2011-06-05, 08:44 PM
Oh lord, masterworked DMs are bad enough, and you went and gave one an enhancement bonus?

It's sadly necessary - without an enhancement bonus, you can't get the enchantments you want. Randomly generating DMs is risky - you might get that +1 Keen Merciful Slick GM who is Animated when playing NPCs, or you might end up with the +1 Unholy Vicious Wounding DM, who thinks the Tomb of Horrors is for wusses. And then, there's always the risk of getting the Dancing DM - no one wants that one.

Hiro Protagonest
2011-06-05, 08:46 PM
It's sadly necessary - without an enhancement bonus, you can't get the enchantments you want. Randomly generating DMs is risky - you might get that +1 Keen Merciful Slick GM who is Animated when playing NPCs, or you might end up with the +1 Unholy Vicious Wounding DM, who thinks the Tomb of Horrors is for wusses. And then, there's always the risk of getting the Dancing DM - no one wants that one.

If the +1 unholy vicious wounding DM allows all splatbooks, I'd love to test my optimization skills against his encounters.

The worst is the +1 vicious defending DM, he gets all angry and defensive when you critic his games.

navar100
2011-06-05, 08:53 PM
It's sadly necessary - without an enhancement bonus, you can't get the enchantments you want. Randomly generating DMs is risky - you might get that +1 Keen Merciful Slick GM who is Animated when playing NPCs, or you might end up with the +1 Unholy Vicious Wounding DM, who thinks the Tomb of Horrors is for wusses. And then, there's always the risk of getting the Dancing DM - no one wants that one.

But what about the +1 Flaming DM?

Kaun
2011-06-05, 08:58 PM
*watches as the car stalls on the train crossing*

*steps back to a safe distance*

*Casts Mordenkainen's delectable snack*

averagejoe
2011-06-05, 09:08 PM
It's sadly necessary - without an enhancement bonus, you can't get the enchantments you want. Randomly generating DMs is risky - you might get that +1 Keen Merciful Slick GM who is Animated when playing NPCs, or you might end up with the +1 Unholy Vicious Wounding DM, who thinks the Tomb of Horrors is for wusses. And then, there's always the risk of getting the Dancing DM - no one wants that one.

:smallfrown: But I like dancing DM's.

And might be one...

Kylarra
2011-06-05, 09:35 PM
Dancing DMs are only good for 4 sessions until they fall comatose though, so have your alibis ready.

Gralamin
2011-06-06, 01:51 AM
Rule Zero, and not telling players things are both important parts of making the game fun. However, A DM needs to learn when to use it. There is no point in changing rule and not telling players (exception: No one really remembers it, and the DM makes an impromptu decision in order to keep the game going at the moment, and lets everyone know), for example. There is also no point in not telling players "He has fire resistance". You may not want to tell players about rolls for things they don't know though. Or you may not want to reveal how you evaluate success in an encounter situation to avoid meta-gaming and self created blocks that many players suffer from.

Basic rule of thumb: Imagine you were playing a Video game. Would you be frustrated with the lack of knowledge? If so, don't hide it from the players. If you have time, run this by unrelated people to the game as well.

So all in all I don't think this board is anti-DM, though I do think there are a number of players who have had DM problems before, and developed a dislike for a rule they shouldn't of. What this board probably is, however, is anti new DM (even though we have a Decent thread about them (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=76474)). The focus on RAW for discussions may cause a DM to stay much closer to the RAW then might work with their game. In addition, the heavy handed comments that are common, such as "DM PCs never work", or even the differing idea of what DM PCs are, will confuse or constrain a new DM.

If I was to rectify this problem, I'd say it's important to encourage new DMs to say they are, and to link them to relevant resources so they may train themselves in the tools available, including when to use them or not to use them.

PersonMan
2011-06-06, 04:39 AM
*watches as the car stalls on the train crossing*

*steps back to a safe distance*

*Casts Mordenkainen's delectable snack*

*watches as train suddenly does a 90 degree turn and rams into a ditch*

Fixed that for you.

Yuki Akuma
2011-06-06, 06:23 AM
It's sadly necessary - without an enhancement bonus, you can't get the enchantments you want. Randomly generating DMs is risky - you might get that +1 Keen Merciful Slick GM who is Animated when playing NPCs, or you might end up with the +1 Unholy Vicious Wounding DM, who thinks the Tomb of Horrors is for wusses. And then, there's always the risk of getting the Dancing DM - no one wants that one.

Personally I'd just prefer a +5 DM.

Sure, it may not be the most optimal use of WBL, and is kinda generic, but my lord his campaigns are epic.

dsmiles
2011-06-06, 07:01 AM
Personally I'd just prefer a +5 DM.

Sure, it may not be the most optimal use of WBL, and is kinda generic, but my lord his campaigns are epic.

Wouldn't that be a +6 DM? :smalltongue:

Telonius
2011-06-06, 08:43 AM
Where you really have to watch out is when one of them has a Dedicated Power. Those Ego points can add up quickly if there's a conflict.

The Glyphstone
2011-06-06, 09:04 AM
Personally I'd just prefer a +5 DM.

Sure, it may not be the most optimal use of WBL, and is kinda generic, but my lord his campaigns are epic.

As long as you can shell out the cash each session for an order of Greater Magic Pizza, you're just wasting the enhancement bonus,

Philistine
2011-06-06, 12:08 PM
As long as you can shell out the cash each session for an order of Greater Magic Pizza, you're just wasting the enhancement bonus,

But what if your DM doesn't like mushrooms?

PairO'Dice Lost
2011-06-06, 12:13 PM
But what if your DM doesn't like mushrooms?

Mushrooms are only the arcane focus. If you can find a cleric to cast GMP for you, it's not a problem.

Hiro Protagonest
2011-06-06, 12:18 PM
Personally, I prefer the +5 keen holy aptitude returning DM. They're very rare, but if you find one, you're in for some awesome games.

dsmiles
2011-06-06, 12:21 PM
Sorry, but I'll take the +1 DM of Normality over the +5 Man-Child DM of Basement Dwelling any day. :smalltongue:

randomhero00
2011-06-06, 01:19 PM
Well one thing (if this hasn't been said already) is that there is about a 10:1 ration of players to DMs. So...it'll always be lopsided.

Telonius
2011-06-06, 01:24 PM
Sorry, but I'll take the +1 DM of Normality over the +5 Man-Child DM of Basement Dwelling any day. :smalltongue:

I thought Normality was supposed to be a mythical enhancement...?

PersonMan
2011-06-06, 01:45 PM
I thought Normality was supposed to be a mythical enhancement...?

Normally, yes.

But if Normality is applied, it becomes...well, a normal enhancement.

Thrice Dead Cat
2011-06-06, 04:16 PM
But what about the +1 Flaming DM?

I don't care what makes his or her sun shine as long as that DM knows how to write decent hooks and adventures for the players!:smallwink:


Having only done DMing once or twice by myself, I can say it takes a lot of work to do. In particular, being able to do nearly anything you need to do on the fly is a must. Yeah, there may be times where you have to call a quick break either to find the write whatchawhosits the PCs are currently hunting or something else, but as long as you can wing all of the social interactions as the NPC you are supposed to be representing would react at the time, well, you should be fine.


This boards views of apparent "anti-DM-ness" probably do stem from the RAW debates that go on. It's infinitely easier to argue over what is written than what is perceived to be there (RAI, RAMS). As such, I generally roll close to RAW with some personal houserules (monks are proficient in unarmed strikes and natural attacks, no multiclassing penalty, Fighters get nice things Tome of Battle, etc.:smalltongue:) for stuff that I can prepare for. For stuff that catches me for a loop, like a necropolitan dread necromancer out in the wilds looking for big beefy animals to reanimate, I generally wing it and either try to be kind in my way of saying "no" or simply relent just due to the nature of the character in question. (Curse you, Rothechilde, City Builder, formerly known as City Slayer!):smalltongue: