PDA

View Full Version : How to deal with a GM who thinks he can just override the rules? (Star Wars Saga)



raxies94
2012-05-31, 04:21 PM
So one of my friends discovered Star Wars Saga a while ago. Being a huge Star Wars fan, he instantly wanted to try it. We've played about 3 sessions since then and we're liking it. My friend decided that he wanted to try to DM it as well, which is his first time doing that type of thing. One of our big problems is that we're still really trying to figure out the rules. First DM'ing problems aside, he does this thing where if there's a question about the rules, he just says "I'm the DM" and we go with his version. But if I look up the actual rule he still just wants to do it his way. Likewise, at our 3rd session last night, he ruled that the boss couldn't be knocked prone by force slam or held by force grip. And there were some numbers that I theorize were pulled out of thin air. Namely a seeming +30~ on UTF.

How can I tell him to stop without offending him? Anybody been through this kind of thing before?

Also, just quick question for any Saga players, does invisibility exist in this game?

Frenth Alunril
2012-05-31, 04:37 PM
I find, in DM issues, present calls are always the DM's. They may not be by the books, but it is his game, and he is going to make it as unplayable as he wants to suit his story. As a player, you kind of have the responsibility of ignoring the man behind the curtain.

Now, you want to address this, and you want it to stop. The best way, in the future, is to start your conversation with him to pre-empt this kind of thing. Try this (it worked for us.)

Since you are all new to the game, look up the rules you are going to need for whatever action you are going to do before you declare your action. When the DM comes to your turn, if he is unclear on the rules, try to have him agree (before the game) that "as long as you already have the rules looked up, and can read them on the spot, the rules will be played as read."

This became the standing house rule for my group because we allowed all spat books and everything else (except psyonics, yuck!). If the player could quickly quote the rules, we went with it, if they couldn't we went with what the DM though the rules were...

I know your stress, though. I played a game where the DM was allowing subdual damage on skeletons, and forest trolls were immune to fire. I wanted to run away screaming.

Best of luck, and remember to try to make that a house rule before the next game. In the end, it's the DM's call. If he won't change, there is little you can do about it.

Yukitsu
2012-05-31, 04:39 PM
I'd just get a different DM until that one gets a better handle on the rules. He should really have had a stronger handle on the rules of the game before trying to DM for it.

raxies94
2012-05-31, 04:41 PM
I find, in DM issues, present calls are always the DM's. They may not be by the books, but it is his game, and he is going to make it as unplayable as he wants to suit his story. As a player, you kind of have the responsibility of ignoring the man behind the curtain.

Now, you want to address this, and you want it to stop. The best way, in the future, is to start your conversation with him to pre-empt this kind of thing. Try this (it worked for us.)

Since you are all new to the game, look up the rules you are going to need for whatever action you are going to do before you declare your action. When the DM comes to your turn, if he is unclear on the rules, try to have him agree (before the game) that "as long as you already have the rules looked up, and can read them on the spot, the rules will be played as read."

This became the standing house rule for my group because we allowed all spat books and everything else (except psyonics, yuck!). If the player could quickly quote the rules, we went with it, if they couldn't we went with what the DM though the rules were...

I know your stress, though. I played a game where the DM was allowing subdual damage on skeletons, and forest trolls were immune to fire. I wanted to run away screaming.

Best of luck, and remember to try to make that a house rule before the next game. In the end, it's the DM's call. If he won't change, there is little you can do about it.

I think that sounds like a pretty fair rule. It's a bit harder to try and talk to him because he's my friend and I don't want to be a ****.

But I think some of it is him just wanting to ignore the rules in favor of his own. For example, aside from the boss thing last night, he told me that I literally could not mind trick a guy. My understanding is that you can mind trick a guy if you beat their will, unless they're like...a jedi master or something. Idk, I think I saw a talent that was about immunity to mind effects.

Binks
2012-05-31, 04:44 PM
How can I tell him to stop without offending him? Anybody been through this kind of thing before?
The same way you deal with this in any game system, you should talk to him about how the overuse of rule 0 (in your opinion) is hurting the game for you. Then you have a discussion about how to fix that. There isn't any silver bullet for these sorts of problems, as it depends a lot on his reasons for doing it. Is it just because he doesn't have the time to prepare? Schedule fewer sessions or have someone help him out. Is it because he doesn't want you guys walking all over his boss because he didn't know you have a specific power? Make sure he knows everything your characters can do for the future, etc. Different answers to different problems.

That said, I'd just like to note that Force Grip resistance on a boss is possibly one area the GM should be able to just say no, as that is a broken power in solo encounters.


Also, just quick question for any Saga players, does invisibility exist in this game?
Yes. There's a force power called Cloak in the Clone Wars Campaign Guide (I believe), as well as a force tradition talent tree that lets you become invisible to force sensing and technology (Agents of Ossus I believe? Might be another one). And, of course, the old standby of a high stealth score + stealthsuit can do the job.

kyoryu
2012-05-31, 04:53 PM
In general, I find that the best way to deal with things like this is to let the GM ruling stand, but look up the actual rule after the game.

As far as abilities not working on someone/something, I do think that's within the scope of the GM's power. There may be a valid in-game reason why something doesn't work that perhaps the GM doesn't want to reveal yet.

It's hard to tell in the early stages whether a GM is really good, or really, really bad. A year from now, you may know exactly what that boss was, and why, and totally understand where the GM was coming from. Or, you may see this as the first exmaple of the GM pulling unbeatable enemies out of thin air just to nerf your abilities.

I'd suggest trusting him for a bit, and seeing where things lead.

raxies94
2012-05-31, 04:53 PM
That said, I'd just like to note that Force Grip resistance on a boss is possibly one area the GM should be able to just say no, as that is a broken power in solo encounters.

Yeah, I noticed that. That said, it was just the boss. No mooks to go along with him. Maybe he'll learn for next time.

NikitaDarkstar
2012-05-31, 04:54 PM
I'm going to agree with Frenth Alunril here, it's the DM's game, and while I'm not overly familiar with the system these things are sort of universal.

First of all keep in mind this is a new system for all of you and this is the first time he's DM'ing, so some patience is required and some understanding for hiccups and mistakes needed.
That said what he's doing is basically house-rules, which to be honest, is just fine as long as he's consistent with it (someone should make a point of writing them down too just for consistency). Boss fights do sometimes fudge the rules a little simply because it's a boss, as long as no random mooks show up that happens to be immune to various force related techniques I don't see the problem.

The "you can't mind trick this guy" thing just smells of DM inexperience in my book, he made the mistake of saying "No." instead of "Roll for it." while setting the Will save to a point where you couldn't beat it, which in the end would have had the same effect, with the added bonus of having your character go "Huh?" in game, which could have been brought up later in some fashion.

I also fully support the suggestion of having him agree to rules as written as long as the player can quote them(and have them ready for the DM to read over) when he asks for them. This way all of you can learn the rules as you play. But keep in mind that if the rules as written clearly has issues (not sure how much this happens in your system but it happens all the time in D&D 3.5) you all take the time to agree to an official house-rule for it.

But all in all be patient with him, so far it sounds more like DM inexperience than anything. Also see if you can't suggest that he drop by these forums or possibly myth-weavers.com's forums to get some general starting tips on how to DM. Make a point of it not being about him being a bad DM (if you're enjoying yourself he's not), just that since he's new at it, some tips and guides might be useful to help him get organized/give him ideas/just general of help to a new DM.

Altair_the_Vexed
2012-05-31, 04:55 PM
Well, if his on the spot rulings are reasonably sensible and fair, and it's faster for him to make a rule up when he doesn't know what the RAW says, then he's being a good GM.

Slowing the game down to look through the rule book for the DC of a task is lame. GMs should eyeball the numbers whenever they don't know, based on a few rules of thumb about general difficulties of task resolution in the system being played - in d20 / OGL based games, those difficulties are stated here (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/skills/usingSkills.htm#difficultyClass). Though I'm not familiar with playing the game much, I believe they hold true for SWSaga, too.

On the other hand, if he's making up unfair and wildly imbalanced rules, and someone is able to state the RAW within seconds ... then maybe he needs to be told to ease up on it.

How you approach telling him / discussing it depends on your relationship with the guy...

Specifically, regarding his use of +30 to UTF: sounds like he's trying to make a bad guy of his own without knowing how yet.
I'd suggest you ask him to use only pre-published enemies - there are loads of them in just the core rule book, let alone all the other supplements. Those bad guys were made with a worked out set of scores and bonuses, and with a CL so he can judge how hard they should be for you to beat.

The trick to use for those pre-published bad guys is to just rename them, and re-describe them. If you hit a bunch of people with a massive clawed bog-monster, covered in dripping slime and prehensile teeth, no-one will realise you just took the rancor stats.

EDIT: Wow - so many Ninjas!

raxies94
2012-05-31, 05:08 PM
Well, if his on the spot rulings are reasonably sensible and fair, and it's faster for him to make a rule up when he doesn't know what the RAW says, then he's being a good GM.

Slowing the game down to look through the rule book for the DC of a task is lame. GMs should eyeball the numbers whenever they don't know, based on a few rules of thumb about general difficulties of task resolution in the system being played - in d20 / OGL based games, those difficulties are stated here (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/skills/usingSkills.htm#difficultyClass). Though I'm not familiar with playing the game much, I believe they hold true for SWSaga, too.

On the other hand, if he's making up unfair and wildly imbalanced rules, and someone is able to state the RAW within seconds ... then maybe he needs to be told to ease up on it.

How you approach telling him / discussing it depends on your relationship with the guy...

Specifically, regarding his use of +30 to UTF: sounds like he's trying to make a bad guy of his own without knowing how yet.
I'd suggest you ask him to use only pre-published enemies - there are loads of them in just the core rule book, let alone all the other supplements. Those bad guys were made with a worked out set of scores and bonuses, and with a CL so he can judge how hard they should be for you to beat.

The trick to use for those pre-published bad guys is to just rename them, and re-describe them. If you hit a bunch of people with a massive clawed bog-monster, covered in dripping slime and prehensile teeth, no-one will realise you just took the rancor stats.

EDIT: Wow - so many Ninjas!

He did say he made all the guys, at which point I was a little concerned. I think the Threats to the Galaxy book has quite a few enemies in it. This might be the best thing; just suggest that he only use premade enemies.

RedWarlock
2012-05-31, 11:53 PM
I disagree about on-the-spot rulings, it might speed up play to have the GM make something up, but if you take 20-40 seconds to look it up, and get it right the first time, then you'll remember the book rule first the NEXT time it comes up, and it won't be an issue any more.

It helps to have a comprehensive rules-source, though, or a person who has the book rule's general location already in mind.

Tyndmyr
2012-06-01, 07:31 AM
So one of my friends discovered Star Wars Saga a while ago. Being a huge Star Wars fan, he instantly wanted to try it. We've played about 3 sessions since then and we're liking it. My friend decided that he wanted to try to DM it as well, which is his first time doing that type of thing. One of our big problems is that we're still really trying to figure out the rules. First DM'ing problems aside, he does this thing where if there's a question about the rules, he just says "I'm the DM" and we go with his version. But if I look up the actual rule he still just wants to do it his way. Likewise, at our 3rd session last night, he ruled that the boss couldn't be knocked prone by force slam or held by force grip. And there were some numbers that I theorize were pulled out of thin air. Namely a seeming +30~ on UTF.

How can I tell him to stop without offending him? Anybody been through this kind of thing before?

Also, just quick question for any Saga players, does invisibility exist in this game?

1. Talk with the rest of the players. Make sure they're on your side with this.
2. Reply with "I'm the player". In short, he needs to justify his assumed power as DM.
3. Point out that ya'll would rather use the rules as written instead of him making stuff up.
4. If he is sufficiently stubborn, ignore his ruling, use the rules as written, and continue play. If he opts to not DM, select a new one.

Raum
2012-06-01, 07:50 AM
How can I tell him to stop without offending him?Be honest and polite. Don't threaten. Find something to complement if you can - if it's all criticism it may not be worth continuing the game.


Anybody been through this kind of thing before?Yeah, as you can see from some of the responses a narcissistic sense of DM entitlement isn't uncommon.

Solaris
2012-06-01, 09:08 AM
Yeah, as you can see from some of the responses a narcissistic sense of DM entitlement isn't uncommon.
Roughly as common as a hatred of DMs and the impression that the only point of the game is for the DM to entertain the players, that the only ones entitled to enjoy the game are the players (and that they may do whatever they want without regard for each other or the DM), yes.

My general rule of thumb is that you need to know the rule in order to break it, if for no other reason than my players seem to accept "I know what the rule is, I'm changing it" better than "I don't know what the rule is, so I'm winging it".
Of course, they don't exactly object to me winging it if we can't find the official rule right off the bat, as I've never had to wing the same ruling twice and openly admit when I'm using Rule Zero.

Of course, this advice is useless unless it gets to the GM.

Raum
2012-06-01, 09:27 AM
Roughly as common as a hatred of DMs and the impression that the only point of the game is for the DM to entertain the players, that the only ones entitled to enjoy the game are the players (and that they may do whatever they want without regard for each other or the DM), yes.Wow...I'm guessing you're carrying a lot of baggage from previous threads.

For the record, I'm simply referring to statements like "It's the DM's game." or "It's my game." It's not - it's a group game. When those statements are used as a justification for a unilateral or arbitrary decision, they're on par with "I'm going to take my ball and go home if I don't get my way."

Temporary rule decisions can, and sometimes should, be ceded to the GM or a designated rules "expert" for the sake of time if nothing else. That doesn't mean they should be arbitrary or that the group shouldn't discuss any problem areas when time permits.

Blacky the Blackball
2012-06-01, 09:36 AM
The important thing to remember is that neither of you is doing it wrong.

"By the book" and "GM Fiat" are both perfectly valid playstyles, and the fact that you prefer one and your GM prefers the other just means that you have different preferences, nothing more.

If you can both bear that in mind when discussing the issue (and make sure that you both frame things in terms of preference: "I prefer X" and "I don't like Y") then you'll probably find it easier to come to a compromise.

Once you start down the route of accusing each other of doing things "wrongly" - or worse, accusing each other of "cheating" or "entitlement" - you're liable to both merely entrench yourselves in your views and destroy the game.

prufock
2012-06-01, 09:56 AM
Guidelines for rule disagreements

1. Study the rules before the game. Know how all your force powers and feats work. Each player should have a grasp of his own abilities. Then when you want to do something, you know the rule and can explain it as you do it. This will stop the "how does this work" questions during gameplay, which should stop the DM pulling rules out of his butt, and splits responsibility among the players.

2. If necessary, print or photocopy text of your relevant abilities on as few pages as you need. Then if you are unsure, the rule is quickly accessible rather than looking through the books.

3. If there is disagreement or confusion about a rule as you play, let the DM decision stand. However you should have a GROUP agreement that after the game you look up the real rule and use that from there on in.

4. If the DM is going to have house rules, he should make those rules apparent to the group before they arise in game.

Raum
2012-06-01, 09:58 AM
The important thing to remember is that neither of you is doing it wrong.I'm not sure right or wrong have anything to do with who makes rule decisions. It's simply a communications and / or group dynamics problem. There are ways to resolve it, ignore it, or even exacerbate it. :smallwink:

raxies94
2012-06-01, 12:21 PM
I think I should mention that I have the book on hand to look up powers, as we dont have an easier system yet. Force power cards look interesting though. Point is, I can look up rules fairly quick.

Anyways, thanks for the advice guys. I'm going to wait another session and see ehat happens. If I still think theres a problem, I will gently say something about it.

Solaris
2012-06-01, 04:55 PM
Wow...I'm guessing you're carrying a lot of baggage from previous threads.
You know what they say about assumptions. I simply have a habit of playing devil's advocate.


For the record, I'm simply referring to statements like "It's the DM's game." or "It's my game." It's not - it's a group game. When those statements are used as a justification for a unilateral or arbitrary decision, they're on par with "I'm going to take my ball and go home if I don't get my way."
The GM should have more say in the game than any other because he puts more work into the game than anyone else. No matter how much work you've put into your one character, the GM has put more work into the world itself.


Temporary rule decisions can, and sometimes should, be ceded to the GM or a designated rules "expert" for the sake of time if nothing else. That doesn't mean they should be arbitrary or that the group shouldn't discuss any problem areas when time permits.
While not arguing for arbitrariness, why have a GM if his purpose is not to referee the game? I've seen what happens with groups who don't defer to the GM's expertise - they tend to break down into hour-long rules debates. I stop coming if the rules debates take up my time - unlike those people, my time is valuable. The way I run the game, there is no in-game appeal, there are no debates during game time - I make the decision, and unless someone can immediately point out in the rulebook where I'm wrong (and I might override 'em anyways if it's one of the blundered rules, like the DMG rules on drowning), it's going to stick. We're there to play, not to debate the nuances of a rule system. I explained this to my players, and they all agreed that it was a good idea for not wasting everyone's time.

What can I say? I never really bought into the player entitlement thing. Player empowerment is great - but the fact that the referee running the game puts more into it and generally doesn't get the same things out of it that the players do (unless he's lucky and has some good roleplayers) means that yeah, it's still his game. He's running it - the players are only playing.

Raum
2012-06-01, 05:26 PM
The GM should have more say in the game than any other because he puts more work into the game than anyone else. No matter how much work you've put into your one character, the GM has put more work into the world itself.The relative amount of effort isn't always a given. But, even if it were, the conclusion appears to be based on the idea that control and effort are commodities.


While not arguing for arbitrariness, why have a GM if his purpose is not to referee the game? If the PCs are the protagonists, the GM's role is traditionally to run the antagonists. That's something which has little to do with the rules.

There are times I've preferred to have a 'rules b****' simply so I can concentrate on running the setting and NPCs. It lets me deal with the game instead of the minutiae of rules.


I've seen what happens with groups who don't defer to the GM's expertise - they tend to break down into hour-long rules debates. I stop coming if the rules debates take up my time - unlike those people, my time is valuable. Now I know you're bringing baggage from elsewhere. I did state "...rule decisions can, and sometimes should, be ceded to the GM or a designated rules "expert" for the sake of time if nothing else."

I'll pass on continued debate here though. We've derailed the thread enough.

Bobb
2012-06-01, 05:31 PM
OP, are you a force user with skill focus Use the Force? If your GM doesn't have a firm grasp of the rules he's going to have a very hard time slowing that down.

I mean, he could give stymie and unstoppable force to half the enemies you encounter or he could just keep you from taking skill focus UTF if he knew what was going on.

EDIT: And if I were you I'd be very forgiving of him. I'm very seldom been able to be a player instead of GM because no one else is interested in doing the work it requires.

raxies94
2012-06-01, 10:52 PM
OP, are you a force user with skill focus Use the Force? If your GM doesn't have a firm grasp of the rules he's going to have a very hard time slowing that down.

I mean, he could give stymie and unstoppable force to half the enemies you encounter or he could just keep you from taking skill focus UTF if he knew what was going on.

EDIT: And if I were you I'd be very forgiving of him. I'm very seldom been able to be a player instead of GM because no one else is interested in doing the work it requires.

I do have Skill Focus: UTF, and I also expressly made it clear that what I'd read suggested is was OP, and that a common solution was to give the bonus in increments of +1 every couple of levels until 10. My advice was seemingly not taken. He might implement something like that at some point though.

navar100
2012-06-01, 11:44 PM
It's not the DM's game. He runs the campaign, but it's everyone's game. What the DM says goes, but if he says enough stupid stuff the players go too. The DM is on a power trip. His ego needs to be deflated.

Solaris
2012-06-02, 06:38 AM
Now I know you're bringing baggage from elsewhere. I did state "...rule decisions can, and sometimes should, be ceded to the GM or a designated rules "expert" for the sake of time if nothing else."
Bolded is the part I took issue with. The language you used indicates that it's not the preferred solution. Am I misreading your intent here? 'Cause I sure as heck know you're misreading mine - I think I've seen what, one or two anti-DM posters here? I've engaged only one of them (and that was mostly unrelated to the DM-player dynamic), and usually just ignore the rest. So please, enlighten me as to where the heck my baggage comes from.

Raum
2012-06-02, 09:21 AM
Bolded is the part I took issue with. "Sometimes" because not every system needs a rules flunky. We never had rules arguments with Wushu or WaRP. They're uncommon enough to take individually with SW and FATE. It's only the complex / bloated systems which need a rules expert. So yes, it's only needed sometimes.

Solaris
2012-06-02, 06:05 PM
It's not the DM's game. He runs the campaign, but it's everyone's game. What the DM says goes, but if he says enough stupid stuff the players go too. The DM is on a power trip. His ego needs to be deflated.
Never attribute to malice that which can be adequately explained by stupidity. The DM's not necessarily on a power trip (I'm seeing little indication of that beyond stamping "No" on Force Grip, which isn't unreasonable for a solo encounter), but he is showing his inexperience with the system and DMing in general.


"Sometimes" because not every system needs a rules flunky. We never had rules arguments with Wushu or WaRP. They're uncommon enough to take individually with SW and FATE. It's only the complex / bloated systems which need a rules expert. So yes, it's only needed sometimes.
Fair enough. I game with rules lawyers; they'll make an argument about anything if it gives them even a tiny benefit.

MonkeyBusiness
2012-06-02, 07:26 PM
The important thing to remember is that neither of you is doing it wrong.

"By the book" and "GM Fiat" are both perfectly valid playstyles, and the fact that you prefer one and your GM prefers the other just means that you have different preferences.,


I like this observation. Raxies, if it feels truthful to say it, making this observation to your friend might be a good way to begin a conversation. That way when you add, "But I feel it's important to learn the rules of this new system, and that can't happen when we have so many house rules ..." it will not seem as critical, while still getting your point across. If I understand you correctly, the game is important to you, but the friendship more so.

Another thing to do might be to pose your frustration as a question to your friend: "How can we learn the new rules of the game without impeding the story you want to tell?"






.

valadil
2012-06-03, 02:04 PM
The GM had every right to change the rules. The GM also has every right to make the game suck. And of course, the players have every right to leave a sucky game.

I think your GM doesn't get why he has the right to change rules probably because he's so new. I wouldn't say he's gone mad with power but he's definitely taking advantage of rule zero. I'd tell him his changes aren't improving the game and instead they're just frustrating the players. But don't be too discouraging. If any of his rulings have worked point those out as examples. You don't want to prevent him from ever changing rules, just from doing it on a whim to make his boss fight cooler.

icefractal
2012-06-03, 02:29 PM
The GM should have more say in the game than any other because he puts more work into the game than anyone else. No matter how much work you've put into your one character, the GM has put more work into the world itself.Well, to play devil's advocate to your devil's advocate... :smallwink:

The GM often doesn't need as much say in the rules because they have so much more say in the world. A rule puts a foe at a disadvantage in the fight? No worries, the GM has an unlimited supply of foes, and can simply up the threat a bit the next time. Don't like the way a certain subsystem works? Focus the campaign on other things. Your NPC's feats don't work as well as you thought they did? Switch them around before the next session.

Now when the rules are sufficiently fubar that a PC becomes unstoppable by anything the rest of the party could even handle, then yeah, you should step in. But just the PCs beating a "boss" more easily than you thought? Suck it up and make a more fiendish challenge next time.

In practice, I think that often the GM can make rules changes with no problem, especially when they talk to the rest of the group about it. It's rarely a necessity though.

Solaris
2012-06-03, 05:32 PM
The GM often doesn't need as much say in the rules because they have so much more say in the world. A rule puts a foe at a disadvantage in the fight? No worries, the GM has an unlimited supply of foes, and can simply up the threat a bit the next time. Don't like the way a certain subsystem works? Focus the campaign on other things. Your NPC's feats don't work as well as you thought they did? Switch them around before the next session.
The rules are the world. The world is the rules. It's not real life, it's a game - you can't completely extricate fluff from crunch.
I said what I said knowing full and well that the DM defines the world (that's part of that 'more work' bit). Your argument is approaching from the wrong angle. Yes, the GM can do those things - and he should, wherever possible. Changing the rules (especially mid-game) is not Plan A, but sometimes things come up wherein the GM needs to be able to make that call in order to preserve the fun of the game. I do it so rarely that entire campaigns go by without me changing anything - but that's because I've already laid out my house-rules and figured out what works and what doesn't by now. In effect, the changes are already there and if my players don't like it, they're free to go find another GM.


But just the PCs beating a "boss" more easily than you thought? Suck it up and make a more fiendish challenge next time.
That's a perfectly legitimate statement to make for a game I run - but I've been doing this more than a couple of minutes, and have the experience to simply not make it so that my plans for the game can be so easily jacked up by abilities my PCs have. Same for pretty much any other experienced GM (and please note the difference between someone who's experienced and someone who has simply repeated the first session a hundred times).
Not so much for a noobie - sometimes he has to do that in order to let the rest of the party take part in the fight, and he doesn't know how to do it without GM fiat. Of course, I assume there's nobody in the group who's run SWSE before - if there is, then he should step aside and let that person run a game while he learns it.
Valadil has the right of it - the problem is not the power, it's the inexperience of the one using it. The correct response is not to take power away from the GM, it's to educate this kid on how to be a good GM.

icefractal
2012-06-04, 02:24 AM
Well actually, that raises an interesting point. I've been reading a thread about blunders people made as GMs and now regret (as told by the people themselves). In that, and in previous threads, I've noticed that a fair number of these come out of the situation "Oh no, the players did something that screwed up the story I prepared - this is a disaster, I need to get things back to how I planned it no matter what!" And then you get ham-handed attempts to put things back on track, usually to bad results.

So I would almost say that nudging things back on track is a (somewhat) advanced GM skill, and newbies would be better served to just roll with the flow and let things diverge from the plan. And also, not be afraid to say "Hey guys, things just went off-road, I need a few minutes to adjust my material."

I'm not saying GMs should be locked to the rules until they pass some exam - I'm just saying that "Rule 0 everything at first, use the rules once you get experienced" is (IMO) the reverse of how it should be done. Use the rules first, then break them once you learn how to do it well.