PDA

View Full Version : Authority over games



ZeroGear
2013-08-19, 05:31 AM
Recently I had a discussion with a friend about who had the final say over what players got to do in games:
My argument was that if the DM felt that players should not have the power to throw around wish, miracle, and resurrection spells like cheep candy, he had the right to restrict access to them and tell the spellcasters said spells were unavailable to them.
My friend argued that since these spells were part of the core rules, the players should be allowed to access them no matter what, and of the whole group wanted to play with said spells, it would pretty much override the DM's decision.

I am NOT asking anyone which one of us is right, as we both have our valid points, but what is your opinion as to who in the game gets to be the final authority as to what is and is not allowed in games?

TheOneHawk
2013-08-19, 05:37 AM
Dm is god. If his setting doesn't have any race other than gnomes, you play gnomes. That said, changes to the core rules should be discussed with players before hand

neonchameleon
2013-08-19, 06:12 AM
1: The DM has final authority
2: Every time the DM needs to invoke that authority both respect for the DM and the fun everyone has at the table decreases
3: The purpose of the rules is to get everyone on the same page - non-simple house rules do the opposite
4: If you don't want high powered casters you shouldn't be playing or DMing high level 3.X

Eldan
2013-08-19, 06:12 AM
Ideally, you'd discuss it out. The DM will argue why these spells are overpowered or don't fit, the group will argue why they want them and in the end, you come to a mutual agreement. That will probably not happen.

After that, it gets complicated. You need house rules to play D&D, even if you perhaps don't notice. There's situations the rules don't cover, rules that simply don't work, things which are so grossly overpowered that the game just ends once you use them and rules that everyone just forgets.

"It's in the core rules" is really never an argument. So is drown healing and monks nonproficient with unarmed strikes.

The second argument is better: the group wants it. In the end, the DM is DM because the group makes them DM. Yes, the DM has power. He creates the setting. But the group has just as much power: they can always make someone else DM or just walk out of the game. Then no game happens and no one is happy.

prufock
2013-08-19, 07:02 AM
Rule 0. If the DM has a ban list, though, he should make that clear from the get-go.

dehro
2013-08-19, 07:26 AM
agreed, a good DM has a shortlist of variations, houserules and stuff that he doesn't like or want to see in his games.. and lets the players know them before the first session even starts, so they can make up their mind whether they accept those rules.
once a player accepts the rules, he loses the right to protest against them...even if all the other players agree with him. it's then up to the DM to conduct the game in such a manner that those limitations and house-rulings don't become a problem.

Jormengand
2013-08-19, 07:28 AM
My argument was that if the DM felt that players should not have the power to throw around wish, miracle, and resurrection spells like cheep candy, he had the right to restrict access to them and tell the spellcasters said spells were unavailable to them.

This is why they have an extremely costly material, and in some cases even experience cost. (Except in PF, where it's "just" material.)

dehro
2013-08-19, 07:30 AM
This is why they have an extremely costly material, and in some cases even experience cost. (Except in PF, where it's "just" material.)

by the time they get to cast those spells, they may well be wealthy enough to afford them with minimal hindrance. a DM should be free to set the limitation so that he doesn't have to worry to keep his players on medium-low income the entire time

BayardSPSR
2013-08-19, 07:36 AM
Dm is god.

This is one thing I've never liked. Why should a DM's interpretation be followed if every player at the table reads a rule differently? I don't think one voice should rule an entire group; if there's a disagreement on rules, then discussion and a vote are the way to solve it. It should take more than "I'm the DM and I say so" to make an argument.

Eldan
2013-08-19, 07:42 AM
"I'm the DM I say so" has two justification.

First, when there's information the players can't know yet. There's a hidden reason for why X happens.

Second, during actual gameplay. Nothing kills the mood faster than rules discussion, so the ability to say "No discussion now, this is what will happen now" is extremely valuable.

dehro
2013-08-19, 07:43 AM
This is one thing I've never liked. Why should a DM's interpretation be followed if every player at the table reads a rule differently? I don't think one voice should rule an entire group; if there's a disagreement on rules, then discussion and a vote are the way to solve it. It should take more than "I'm the DM and I say so" to make an argument.

because that's pretty much his role, he's the arbiter of the game.. should he be irrational and antagonistic people will just walk away from the game and pick a new DM..on that they can vote. on the interpretations of the rules as long as they play within his DM-ing, they cannot.

Jormengand
2013-08-19, 07:49 AM
by the time they get to cast those spells, they may well be wealthy enough to afford them with minimal hindrance. a DM should be free to set the limitation so that he doesn't have to worry to keep his players on medium-low income the entire time

Of course, but the spells themselves are designed in such a way that you probably don't want to be casting them three times a week.

Eldan
2013-08-19, 07:55 AM
There's pretty much never a situation where Wish or Miracle wouldn't help.

neonchameleon
2013-08-19, 07:56 AM
"I'm the DM I say so" has two justification.

First, when there's information the players can't know yet. There's a hidden reason for why X happens.

Second, during actual gameplay. Nothing kills the mood faster than rules discussion, so the ability to say "No discussion now, this is what will happen now" is extremely valuable.

I disagree with point 2. "Because I'm the DM and I didn't think of that" kills the mood stone cold dead faster and harder than any rules argument.

valadil
2013-08-19, 08:11 AM
if the whole group wanted to play with said spells, it would pretty much override the DM's decision.


Majority rules is dumb. What happens if the group is about to TPK and the party leader raises a vote to remove the Dragon from the board? All the players say yes, the Dragon disappaears. Then the players vote to gain five levels and vorpal weapons. Oh and the party also votes that the GM's cousin can join the game with his character from another game, even though he was playing V:tM. The rules aren't compatible, but party vote! Now they are.

TheStranger
2013-08-19, 08:12 AM
I don't think either side is "right" with regard to who gets to make these decisions. I'm not 100% sure that either side is "wrong," either.

The DM is the arbiter of the rules and the game world. However, the DM has this authority by the agreement of the players. Ultimately, everybody at the table - DM and players - is there so that everybody can have fun. No one person, DM or not, should make things less fun for everybody else, and a DM on a power trip will soon find himself without a group.

On the other hand, the players have agreed to put the DM in the position of being the final arbiter of the rules, and part of that is accepting that the rules don't always work in their favor. If players won't accept a rules (or setting) decision that disadvantages them, they'll soon find themselves without a DM.

So I guess my answer is that neither side has the right to make a final decision, and that both sides have an obligation to consider the other side's position and be open to compromise.

Totally Guy
2013-08-19, 08:17 AM
because that's pretty much his role, he's the arbiter of the game.. should he be irrational and antagonistic people will just walk away from the game and pick a new DM..on that they can vote.


I find it funny that the social awkwardness of actually doing that is baked right into the fundamentals of the hobby.

Evo_Kaer
2013-08-19, 09:02 AM
I'd say as long as the game is running and an immediate rules discussion come up, the DM gets the last word. I let my players talk to me about it so long as it doesn't take forever, but I get the final say (sometimes they are right and I agree. I can be wrong too).

If it's something, like wish/miracle exisiting as you say, then that should be discussed with the players. Talk to them about why you don't want those spells and they should tell you why they want them. Maybe you reach a consensus. For example allow them, but with harder restrictions.


That being said, I would probably solve this whole thing ingame.
Scrolls of wish/miracle cost at least 28825 gp each. That's not really cheap. Although I don't know the lvl of your player's characters, so for all I know, they might be epic lvl and have so much money, they could buy an entire plane and send all inhabitants away.
BUT!!! Someone needs to make those scrolls, right? Even NPCs can't have an endless supply of wish scrolls. Also you should consider demand & supply. If your players like to buy lots of those scrolls, they will get more expensive.

Another way for miracle would be that whoever casts it gets a visit from his/her deities herald, warning them about their power abuse.

For wish there is also one very interesting note in the ELH: When handling wishes, the multiverse takes the point of least resistance. The example in there was: If a character wants that nothing can harm them ever again, the wish will just raze their existance from the very face of the multiverse. Thus ensuring that no harm can be done to that person anymore.
Though that suggestion is for when players get overly extreme with their wishes.

CarpeGuitarrem
2013-08-19, 09:10 AM
I think it's important for the GM to have some authority, but not fiat authority. They need to remain true to the world, they need to be fair to players, and they need to be a fan of the players, giving them challenges to test their mettle but not being an adversary who wants to crush them...because they're an adversary with unlimited narrative power.

Well, okay. There's a lot I can say about this. But basically--I don't think "DM is god" is necessarily a good dynamic for the game. I think...

The best way I'd term it is that the GM is a steward of the story and the game world. Their job is to keep the world spinning, and to set the players possible courses of action to trace through.

DigoDragon
2013-08-19, 09:14 AM
If the DM has a ban list, though, he should make that clear from the get-go.

I agree with this. I always make it a point at the start of any campaign to write down a list of banned/houseruled materials for my players. Also, if it's banned for players, it's banned for me as well. Seems only fair.

Ultimate_Coffee
2013-08-19, 09:28 AM
When it all comes down to it, the DM gets final say. This is reiterated differently depending on the game you are playing, but the general consensus is that the DM makes the final rule on everything. If the DM says no, then the answer is no, even if he is directly overruling the Core Rules.
This being said, a DM who abuses this power will quickly find himself without a gaming group.
Personally, I find that DND becomes very unbalanced at high levels, so I run E6. My players don't mind, but I make it very clear on what the world is about before we begin the first session.
If E6 seems too drastic however, you could always try a compromise. In my oppinion, spells like wish are dangerous to throw around, without wording a wish really well, you can do a lot of damage. And any divine spell is governed by the deity granting the power. A miracle spell has to fit into the gods wishes. If not... no miracle. Its as simple as that.
But if your players are unwilling to compromise and sacrifice these powers, and these powers are detremental to your game. Then you can always just stop DMing. I know I'm not willing to run a game with people that aren't willing to compromise to the power limits of my world...

erikun
2013-08-19, 10:27 AM
The GM has the right to not use or disallow any material in the sourcebooks. They should make such decisions judiciously, as players are likely coming to the game expecting all such material to be allowed by default, and disallowing it might make character concepts awkward or impossible to play.

The players have the right to use any material in the sourcebooks. They should make judicious use of them, as intentionally causing problems in the gameworld outside what the GM can handle can grind the game to a halt.



For a game like D&D, I tend to fall on the side of the DM to decide what can and cannot be allowed. D&D typically places the lion's share of the campaign workload on the DM's shoulders, and it is purely up to the DM to decide what is appropriate in the campaign, what adventures to create, and what details to include. As such, the DM has the right to say that Wish, Miracle, and Resurrection spells do not exist in the gameworld and such that players do not have access to them.

The DM may also decide that such spells are restricted, and that players do not have access to them unless they can locate a copy and make use of it - although such ruling shouldn't be used as an excuse to only give NPCs such powers. The DM would also want to provide a logical explanation, in this case how a Cleric would be able to add Resurrection to their spell list after finding it. (Perhaps it is a lost holy book that needs to be returned to the church to allow the spell?)

Anonymouswizard
2013-08-19, 11:11 AM
I have 'the DM is god' on my GM screen to remind the players that I make on-the-fly rulings to keep the game running. This is the primary role of the GM, to make the rules work to increase the fun of everybody.

Most of these rulings of these rulings should be the product of requests or quires by players, while the rest should be made to improve the fun of the game.

(The current rough group rate (with both primary GMs) stands at 80% because the players came up with a plan and I had to wing it, 15% because a player wanted to know something [like 'how many objects can I make in a turn], 4% because the encounter was meant to be scary instead of deadly and turned out to be easy, and 1 time because I thought it made more sense)

However, there is a cravat that I haven't informed my players yet (as I have only had a single disagreement, and most of my players are fairly relaxed), and that is that if 2/3rds of them oppose a ruling it will not be imposed.

In addition, we run with the following rules regarding material:

1)If you want something intrisic to your character (a spell known or power or the like) you should check with the GM first.
2)Once the character has appeared in the game the ruling is final.
3)Even if it has been allowed for one character it might not be allowed for another, in order to keep the party balanced.

Currently our ban list includes:
-Material in books the GM doesn't own.
-Spontaneous casters (world-building decision, all players were informed of it before they made their characters).
-Any combination of options that makes you more powerful than the rest of the group.
-Characters with powers too close to superman or spiderman.
-Gods from published settings.

Currently this has only caused one disagreement (over the gods, even though I don't care if you worship Edward Elric instead of the Packmaster a god from a published setting was suggested to a single player), and one character concept banned.

EDIT: added cravat.

Big Fau
2013-08-19, 11:19 AM
This is one thing I've never liked. Why should a DM's interpretation be followed if every player at the table reads a rule differently? I don't think one voice should rule an entire group; if there's a disagreement on rules, then discussion and a vote are the way to solve it. It should take more than "I'm the DM and I say so" to make an argument.

The DM isn't just a dictator, the players "voted him into power" by participating in his campaign. If they don't like a decision they have every right to voice their opinions and try to get a ruling changed, but they effectively chose to play by his rules.

DMs are supposed to act as arbiters when it comes to rule interpretations. If you don't like a ruling, ask the DM if you can debate it after the session (if there's time). If the DM's rulings are actively detracting from the fun, leave. That's your "veto".

Alabenson
2013-08-19, 11:25 AM
One on hand, the DM is the one running the game and therefore has the final say on what is and isn't allowed in said game.
That being said;
1) The players should be informed of any houserules before they begin playing, especially if they have a significant impact on the game. Furthermore, the DM should be expected to abide by his own rules.
2) If the entire party objects to a given houserule, then the DM should seriously consider scrapping that particular rule.

The DM may be the one running the game, but he should always keep in mind that he isn't the only one playing the game.

CarpeGuitarrem
2013-08-19, 12:44 PM
The DM isn't just a dictator, the players "voted him into power" by participating in his campaign. If they don't like a decision they have every right to voice their opinions and try to get a ruling changed, but they effectively chose to play by his rules.

DMs are supposed to act as arbiters when it comes to rule interpretations. If you don't like a ruling, ask the DM if you can debate it after the session (if there's time). If the DM's rulings are actively detracting from the fun, leave. That's your "veto".
As has been mentioned, this is a problematic line of thought when you consider that "just leave the group" is a massive social pressure. Players have a sort of dependency on the GM; they're the one who's ambitious enough to put something together to run players through, which tends to create a sort of entitlement on the part of the GM. This entitlement can sometimes lead to power abuse.

The reason why the power abuse goes unchecked isn't because the players are okay with it. It's because leaving the group is too grievous a step for them to take; they'd much rather put up with a mediocre or irksome GM than not have a GM at all. Leaving a group is a big step, especially because it also speaks on a personal level--it's an implied rejection of the GM.

Which means that the #1 thing a GM must be is sensitive; a GM needs to listen to their players and adapt. The authority of a GM is derived from the respect of the players, and they need to earn and to deserve that respect.

navar100
2013-08-19, 12:59 PM
What the DM says goes. If he says enough stupid stuff the Players go too.

NichG
2013-08-19, 01:19 PM
One thing that I think players don't appreciate is that DMs do not always have the skill to run what they want to play in a way that will be fun for everyone.

When the DM says 'Wish is OP, I'm banning it', I think the players should stop to think 'is he banning it because he wants to make us suffer, or is he banning it because he is incapable of running a fun game that includes Wish?'.

Not every ban is a DM aesthetics thing - some of them are simply the DM trying to get the game into a regime of play that he's comfortable with running. If players push too hard to get the DM to go outside of his boundaries, they risk putting the DM in a place where he won't be able to provide a good gaming experience anymore.

If you're a brand new DM, you probably shouldn't run a Lv20 campaign. But keeping the PCs low level and happy with it is actually quite a challenging task in manipulating player psychology. If you just run a Lv3 game for 20 sessions and keep everyone at Lv3, they will likely start to get bored with being that level. So the inclination is to allow levels to advance, but then you get into higher powered games where it takes quite a lot of DM experience to keep the game together. Banning the stuff that proves problematic is a reasonable way to keep the game within the DM's comfort zone while still allowing that advancement to occur.

So even if the players all want something, that doesn't mean that they'll actually have fun when they get it if the DM doesn't have the skill or experience to deal with it.

dehro
2013-08-19, 01:42 PM
I find it funny that the social awkwardness of actually doing that is baked right into the fundamentals of the hobby.

that's because too many people seem to forget that it's just that.. a hobby, a catalyst of interests and likeminded individuals, at most...not the defining factor of a friendship or relationship.
and I say so as somebody who has only recently started playing again on account of never finding people to play with and who would be screwed if he had to leave the current party over a gaming issue.

Tengu_temp
2013-08-19, 02:27 PM
1: The DM has final authority
2: Every time the DM needs to invoke that authority both respect for the DM and the fun everyone has at the table decreases
3: The purpose of the rules is to get everyone on the same page - non-simple house rules do the opposite
4: If you don't want high powered casters you shouldn't be playing or DMing high level 3.X

This (although you can probably get away with 4 with enough house rules). The DM has the final say on everything, but that doesn't mean he should be waving his authority around and going "this is what goes because I say so" instead of listening to what the players have to say.

Magesmiley
2013-08-19, 02:52 PM
I side with the DM here. Ultimately the DM is running the game. He/she also has a huge box of tools at his disposal to justify why something doesn't work as listed in the core books. The gods have placed an injunction on these magics. An epic caster inadvertently has altered the nature of magic. An artifact was recently activated that prevents the magic from working. Magical sunspots that last years are causing problems. The list goes on and on.

Very often there are reasons why things don't work as presented in the core books. Players often have a partial understanding of what is going on. And it is very hard to argue with a DM who puts forth the argument "that is simply how things work on this world," especially when the DM is the primary creator of the world everyone is playing in.

Jay R
2013-08-19, 03:54 PM
Except for published modules with pre-defined characters and no judgment calls, the game is not complete without the DM's input. He or she is one of the people inventing the game. The DM isn't over-ruling the rules; he or she is finishing them.

Yes of course the referee of any game makes decisions that the players have to follow.

But I also urge the DM to listen to the players before making the ruling. The introduction to the game I'm currently designing has the following paragraph:

Reasonable exceptions to these rules are allowed, within certain bounds. I won’t necessarily explain the bounds to you. (If I plan to have you carried off by Vikings, I won’t tell you why your character can’t speak Old Norse, for instance.) Ask for exceptions. Your character should be an exception to the general rules in some way. I want you to have a character you will enjoy, but who won’t mess up my plans or overshadow the other characters.

Toofey
2013-08-19, 04:02 PM
I play/use 2nd ed, so I think the DM naturally has full authority.

I also use a lot of house rules, and have ALWAYS thought it was terribly unfair to not have the established house rules I use available to the players (I currently keep them posted on a forum I have for my games)

jedipotter
2013-08-19, 05:19 PM
I am NOT asking anyone which one of us is right, as we both have our valid points, but what is your opinion as to who in the game gets to be the final authority as to what is and is not allowed in games?

I side with it is the DM's call. It is the DM's game. The DM has to put a lot of time and effort into creating, maintaining and running a whole game world. While a player just sits back and plays the game.


This is a great example of why DM's and players are not equals. The player just shows up with a character and wants to have a good time. Say the player wants to solve a murder mystery. Does the player craft the whole mystery? No. They just sit back and ask a DM to do it ''oh and make it fun''.

Jay R
2013-08-19, 08:23 PM
I have one issue with the notion that all rules must be known to the players. All the basic rules are known, but I deliberately re-write some monsters so that the players won't automatically know everything about them.

But they do know that I will do so. From the introduction to the campaign:

DO NOT assume that you know anything about any fantasy creatures. I will re-write many monsters and races, introduce some not in D&D, and eliminate some. The purpose is to make the world strange and mysterious. It will allow (require) PCs to learn, by trial and error, what works. Most of these changes I will not tell you in advance. Here are a couple, just to give you some idea what I mean.

1. Dragons are not color-coded for the benefit of the PCs.
2. There is no clear definition of the gods.

valadil
2013-08-19, 08:28 PM
I have one issue with the notion that all rules must be known to the players. All the basic rules are known, but I deliberately re-write some monsters so that the players won't automatically know everything about them.

Does anyone ever object to that? I take it as a given that my characters don't know how many HP their enemies have (or even that their enemies have numerical HP), but I'm curious if anyone thinks that's information they should have.

tasw
2013-08-19, 09:57 PM
Recently I had a discussion with a friend about who had the final say over what players got to do in games:
My argument was that if the DM felt that players should not have the power to throw around wish, miracle, and resurrection spells like cheep candy, he had the right to restrict access to them and tell the spellcasters said spells were unavailable to them.
My friend argued that since these spells were part of the core rules, the players should be allowed to access them no matter what, and of the whole group wanted to play with said spells, it would pretty much override the DM's decision.

I am NOT asking anyone which one of us is right, as we both have our valid points, but what is your opinion as to who in the game gets to be the final authority as to what is and is not allowed in games?

Your friends wrong. "Core" and "RAW" are just suggestions, not concrete blocks you have to walk around carrying around your neck as a GM.

Put the blocks down. Its your world and your game. If you want to change the rules of magic then change them. If a player hates it tell him to point out where the explicit laws of magic in the magic text book justifies their existence.

This usually works.

PS. Be prepared for a creative player to show up with some new age wiccan book a few weeks later using it as a "magic text book" (happened to me twice) and how your going to deal with that.

icefractal
2013-08-19, 10:01 PM
Ultimately, power comes from the group as a whole. They delegate some of that power to the GM. In absolute terms, the GM doesn't have to run anything they don't want to, and the players don't have to play anything they don't want to. But in practice, it's often better to compromise a bit.

About something like this, I feel that it should be part of the parameters of the campaign, from the start. Then the group can either agree to play or not, and if not they can discuss it and come to a compromise (or realize that their tastes are too different).

If it comes up in the middle of a game, you deal with it the same way, but it's not ideal - people have more invested in the game, and having it shut down will likely cause hurt feelings, where having a theoretical game not start wouldn't. In any case, "authority" is not really the important thing. The GM wants to run X type of game. The players want to play Y type of game. Either they can reach an agreement, or they can't and there isn't a game.

navar100
2013-08-19, 10:06 PM
It's the DM's campaign, but it's everyone's game. If the DM refuses any player input, if he says "there's the door" enough times, players will take him up on that offer. It doesn't matter how awesome the DM thinks his game world is or his house rules are if there are no players to play. The DM is not the players' Lord and Master.

Player input doesn't mean the players decide what NPCs exist, magic items they must have, etc. It means the DM makes sure whatever his campaign design is doesn't trump players' fun. His fun is important too, but it is equally important not more important. The power to take the ball and go home doesn't make you the superior person.

Jay R
2013-08-19, 10:09 PM
Does anyone ever object to that? I take it as a given that my characters don't know how many HP their enemies have (or even that their enemies have numerical HP), but I'm curious if anyone thinks that's information they should have.

It's not just that. In this game, Goblins will be the standard mook, but they will have HPs like orcs, be half-animal and fight with claws and superior strength. Trolls will not regenerate, but will live underwater like Grendel. Dwarves will be underground-only, and neutral-to-evil. A species of elf will be similar to Harry potter house-elves, though taller.

Since the PCs all grew up in an isolated village, they will not know anything about monsters. I just want the players to know that they don't know anything about monsters.

[And just in case some of my players are reading this, not everything listed above is true.]

Palanan
2013-08-19, 10:32 PM
Originally Posted by Jay R
1. Dragons are not color-coded for the benefit of the PCs.

This just went on my list of great quotes from the Playground. :smalltongue:


Originally Posted by erikun
For a game like D&D, I tend to fall on the side of the DM to decide what can and cannot be allowed. D&D typically places the lion's share of the campaign workload on the DM's shoulders, and it is purely up to the DM to decide what is appropriate in the campaign, what adventures to create, and what details to include.

I'm very much of this mind. There have been some good points raised as far as listening to the players, and adapting to their preferences, which is fine to a degree--but you can only change so much of your campaign before it's no longer your campaign at all.

Like a lot of DMs, I put a huge amount of work into my campaigns that's rarely ever seen. That's part and parcel of the territory; but given the amount of effort involved, it's hardly feasible to bend the campaign into entirely new shapes to please a player's every whim. The DM designs a world and a storyline for the characters to move within; and in order for the storyline to work as it's intended, the world and its assumptions need to be consistent.

Mr Beer
2013-08-19, 10:51 PM
The DM absolutely has final authority over every single rule in the game. He has the right to make whatever decision he likes, yes even if that decision is contary to the rulebook and even if it's entirely petty, arbitary or foolish.

Equally, each player has final authority over whether or not to participate in the game.

Of course, as stated in many different ways in this thread, a sensible DM acts in a fair, informative and consultative fashion because petty tyrannical DMs run out of players quickly.

Ultimately though the DM is supreme overlord in game.

Jay R
2013-08-19, 11:10 PM
This just went on my list of great quotes from the Playground. :smalltongue:

I trust you recognize it as more-or-less a quote from the comic (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0207.html).

Ravens_cry
2013-08-19, 11:54 PM
Rule 0: GM makes the rules.
Rule -1: Players make it a game. Without the players, there is no game.
Any GM who plays the petty tyrant deserves their players leaving.

Ashtagon
2013-08-20, 12:36 AM
I agree with this. I always make it a point at the start of any campaign to write down a list of banned/houseruled materials for my players. Also, if it's banned for players, it's banned for me as well. Seems only fair.

Disagree on the last sentence. Sometimes, something needs to be an "NPC special" for the sake of the story.

In one moderni(ish) campaign setting I have, magic officially does not exist. Psionics and advanced genetic engineering may or may not exist, but the PCs don't have access to it - initially. The discovery of who has these technologies is a major storyline point. Actual superpowers (as in superman) also exist in the setting, but teh PCs will never have access to that.

Think of the stargate franchise. At the start, the heroes aren't even aware that starships capable of interstellar travel are possible, or zatt guns, or "intars" (non-lethal energy weapons), or that the host does survive. Learning about these "rules" is a major story element. The nox and tollan also have high technology, are nominally friendly, but won't share their technology.

dehro
2013-08-20, 02:45 AM
it just occurred to me that I must have read in half a dozen manuals at least that the DM has final say on the rules and the authority to change, adapt and bend them. I mean..that's practically a rule. negating that is paramount to saying you don't get to get out of prison for free if you have a "get out of prison for free card" in a monopoly game.

Toy Killer
2013-08-20, 02:53 AM
I'm currently pondering the idea of running a game where the players have a team leader, who operates as general DM.

They would go to him/her for questions on if they can take a class or if they can use a spell to do whatever. Now, on the table, I will maintain the ability to warrant final say. But since I'm trying to invoke the clever solutions to interesting problems, that game is largely an experiment in how frequently I can "Say 'Yes' to the Players" without making the game crazy un-followable.

Totally Guy
2013-08-20, 03:37 AM
Anyone pondered playing some GMless games? There's some good stuff out there.

(Unrelated to this thread) I've just proposed to one of my groups that we should play some Fiasco, Microscope and my Kickstarter backer prerelease of Kingdom over the next month while we're missing a player.

Lorsa
2013-08-20, 05:28 AM
In the end, whoever the group has agreed on to have authority of the game is the one with authority. If no such agreement has been made, and this causes an issue at a later date, either an agreement has to be made or the group will seize to exist. These sort of decisions have to be made through consensus for everyone to be happy. The one with authority over the game could be the GM, one of the players or someone's mother.


I have one issue with the notion that all rules must be known to the players. All the basic rules are known, but I deliberately re-write some monsters so that the players won't automatically know everything about them.

But they do know that I will do so. From the introduction to the campaign:

Considering that you have a written introduction to the campaign tells me you DO inform the players of the rules. Even if the rule is "some statistics will be hidden".

neonchameleon
2013-08-20, 05:33 AM
I have one issue with the notion that all rules must be known to the players. All the basic rules are known, but I deliberately re-write some monsters so that the players won't automatically know everything about them.

Monsters aren't rules by any understanding I have of the term. Monsters are things within the gameworld. Re-writing the rules would be "It takes three days not 8 hours for a caster to regain spells" or the like. Monster stat blocks are just suggestions to make things easier for the DM.

GolemsVoice
2013-08-20, 06:10 AM
One the one hand, I'd say that, if the adventure or the gameworld requires it, the DM has the right to reject any and all features of the game that don't fit with what he wants, or to warn players from using a character class that would be ill suited to the planned adventure. In a world without elves or spontaneous casting, you can't play an elven sorceror, and in a cloak-and-dagger style game, a pure warrior might not be very fun. The players don't have to LIKE that decision, but this should be discussed before the campaign begins, so that everybody knows what to expect and can thus judge if he or she wants to play that campaign or not. If you accept the campaign, you accept all the rules included.

However, I think that players should also have a certain security, things they can be certain of. If a spell or a rule is printed in one of the books, it should be allowed unless the DM explicitely says it's not. Otherwise the players will never know what to expect, and planning becomes hard because any option you thought you had might be shut down by the DM, leaving you stranded. Finding out there is no featherfall spell AFTER you decided to escape from the bad guys by jumping down a cliff is rough, especially if the DM just did it because he wasn't expecting this action.
All in all, yes, the DM has the majority of the work, which is why players should accept the DM's decisions, but it's also the DM's job to make the game fun for the players, and, especially in D&D, a game that consists of myriad combinations of races, classes and spells, "fun" for me also means building a unique and interesting character.

jedipotter
2013-08-20, 06:39 AM
Monsters aren't rules by any understanding I have of the term. Monsters are things within the gameworld. Re-writing the rules would be "It takes three days not 8 hours for a caster to regain spells" or the like. Monster stat blocks are just suggestions to make things easier for the DM.

I wonder why Monsters get a free pass? If a DM was to re-write skills, feats, class abilities or spells, I'm sure every player would demand to know the changes.

TuggyNE
2013-08-20, 06:55 AM
I wonder why Monsters get a free pass? If a DM was to re-write skills, feats, class abilities or spells, I'm sure every player would demand to know the changes.

Two main factors: first, monsters are essentially nigh-arbitrary bundles of numbers designed around an idea; second, monsters don't directly affect most PC abilities*, and are largely opaque. The first factor basically means that, unless the monster is designed wrong in some way, changes don't make much difference. The second means that there are few or no unforeseen consequences and necessary changes to PC choices.

*Barring summons, animal companions, wild shaping, and one or two other things.

joca4christ
2013-08-20, 08:12 AM
I am NOT asking anyone which one of us is right, as we both have our valid points, but what is your opinion as to who in the game gets to be the final authority as to what is and is not allowed in games?

If the questions is as simple as it sounds (and it isn't) I would say that the DM is the final authority of what is allowed in the game. That being said, it definitely should be discussed beforehand. And when saying "No", it should be clarified, to some degree, as to "why not" without spoiling any major plot/story/world reveals.

I think houseruling out variables just because one doesn't like something is a little extreme, but if one can give a reasoned explanation for why something doesn't belong in a setting, then one should give said reasoned explanation.

And as others have said, if the players, upon hearing said explanation, can't except, and cannot counter with another compelling logical argument, they are free to play elsewhere.

GungHo
2013-08-20, 08:27 AM
Rule 0: GM makes the rules.
Rule -1: Players make it a game. Without the players, there is no game.
Any GM who plays the petty tyrant deserves their players leaving.

Agreed. You're not adversaries. You're all on the same team.

I would add, though, that I believe the argument that "well, it's in the core manual" is specious and ultimately defensible by using the same tactic. It's one thing if they're all asking for something because of a specific reason, but "being in the guide" doesn't override the part of the GM's section that specifically says that what the GM decides is in or in the game goes, though I'd consider picking up the book and reading it to the players to be petty and passive-aggressive.

erikun
2013-08-20, 08:44 AM
I wonder why Monsters get a free pass? If a DM was to re-write skills, feats, class abilities or spells, I'm sure every player would demand to know the changes.
I think the big difference is between what the characters would reasonably know and what the characters would reasonably have no knowledge about.

Characters are, understandably, going to know what bears and elves and magic are. They are going to be familiar with grappling and common equipment and the standard uses of skills. Players need to be familiar with common mechanics in the game, which is why those should be presented to them up front - this includes if something presented in the books will be considerably different, especially with D&D3e and its insistence on builds.

However, anything that characters aren't familiar with is fair game to change and present differently. I would be hesitant to make kobolds into 25th level draconic sorcerers by default, but changing the stats on a giant, changing the SLA of a demon, or placing some new kind of lost magic somewhere should be fair game.

CarpeGuitarrem
2013-08-20, 09:13 AM
I wonder why Monsters get a free pass? If a DM was to re-write skills, feats, class abilities or spells, I'm sure every player would demand to know the changes.
Monsters are basically characters constructed by a set of rules (even if those rules boil down to "because I said so"). Same for NPCs; they're products of the rules.

Black Jester
2013-08-20, 09:17 AM
This conflict seems to me as a somewhat D&D-specific phenomenon (within a larger context of authority conflicts), namely the idea that everything published within the official source material is by default part of the game, and can therefore be used accordingly. In many other games, this notion would be absurd (just try to play Gurps without any limitations and enough points to exploit it), but there seems to be a tendency to put a lot of faith in the books (or if you want to put it negatively, use the books as a reason to become entitled to certain stuff).


This adds another layer to the relationship between player and GM, by implicitly including the author(s) of the game material into the hierarchy (and by placing them on a higher level as the actual involved people, by establishing the book as a common higher authority.
Now, *I* have a very clear opinion about that, but I have no idea how common this notion (and it is certainly not the most common one, or the best) : The opinion of RPG authors who don't know me or my group and who are not a part of it doesn't matter in the slightest for anything that happens in the game. If they join the group, their ideas and opinion matter as much as those of anyone else, but until then, they are basically non-entities. Rule texts of all sorts are always and under all circumstances malleable. It is similar with a game's fluff, but since the fluff actually matters I am much more reluctant in that regard.

However, this solution can be horrible, in particular to the GM, because by replacing the common higher authority of the written works you create a void you have to fulfill yourself. That's a significant responsibility for the game, and certainly not always a fun one.


Now, when it comes to the conflict between player and gamemaster, in my experience that is much more often a conflict of personalities and not of the roles. In every social group, the members will over time establish a social hierarchy when it comes to the interaction between the group's members. That is both inevitable and sometimes more, sometimes less subtle or steep. Often, these hierarchy roles are somewhat dynamic and situational. In a gaming group, these different hierarchies can clash when the functional hierarchy (gamemaster to player) and the social hierarchy do not overlap.
it can also be an issue of mutual trust, i.e. can I, the gamemaster trust you, the player to not ruin the campaign by doing horrible and inappropriate stuff to it? Can I, as the player, trust you, gamemaster to not put me into an 'unfair' disadvantage in the game or trap me otherwise (what is unfair can depend greatly from game to game. In a game of Call of Cthulhu, crippling madness or a painful death are generally more accepted (or even appreciated) than in a more heroic context)?
This trust can be earned -but by both sides. After all there is such a thing as being a good and responsible player. There is also a certain mindset that clearly puts the GM solely into the role of the entertainer and the players as the ones who are entertained and assume that the game serves basically as a mean to their gratification. This is both not so very uncommon (or at least not nearly uncommon enough) and it is one of the issues that can turn running a game from a great experience to a chore. As a player, you are just as responsible for the game as the GM, and this usually includes the acceptance that the roles are what they are - including the acceptance of the GM's authority within the framework of the game.

erikun
2013-08-20, 10:19 AM
This conflict seems to me as a somewhat D&D-specific phenomenon (within a larger context of authority conflicts), namely the idea that everything published within the official source material is by default part of the game, and can therefore be used accordingly. In many other games, this notion would be absurd (just try to play Gurps without any limitations and enough points to exploit it), but there seems to be a tendency to put a lot of faith in the books (or if you want to put it negatively, use the books as a reason to become entitled to certain stuff).
It seems to be more of a D&D3e- and D&D4e-specific phenomenon, I've found. When I played AD&D, it was not assumed you'd get full access to all material - players would generally ask the DM if something was allowed before trying to play it.

I'm not sure what happened with D&D3e. It was likely either the large amount of character-focused content in books (most books are focused on new classes, feats, spells, and sometimes systems) or the internet making such material so much more available to everyone, or both. It's quite clear how it happened with D&D4e: DDI had character builders that used all official content. Between that and three PHB + two equipment guides being called "Core" it was somewhat hard to assume that only the PHB1 material was allowed in most games.

Jay R
2013-08-20, 10:45 AM
I wonder why Monsters get a free pass? If a DM was to re-write skills, feats, class abilities or spells, I'm sure every player would demand to know the changes.

I have occasionally re-written skills, abilities, or spells. Players get to know those changes if and only if their character has the skill or ability, or would reasonably know about it. A wizard with Spellcraft could make a roll to learn about the changes in a spell, somebody who grew up in a palace would know about the changes to Etiquette, a Ranger would know about the changes to Survival. But a fighter from a small village wouldn't know any of them, so the player shouldn't.

Similarly, if a monster appears in front of a group of people who grew up in a small village, they don't necessarily know anything about its abilities. Bilbo doesn't know anything about Gollum when they meet. He also doesn't know a troll's weakness (although somebody else in the party with more experience did know).

I change monsters in order to give the players a mysterious, fantastic world.

Palanan
2013-08-20, 12:56 PM
Originally Posted by Jay R
I trust you recognize it as more-or-less a quote from the comic.

I don't read the comic, so actually I didn't.


Originally Posted by Black Jester
This conflict seems to me as a somewhat D&D-specific phenomenon...namely the idea that everything published within the official source material is by default part of the game, and can therefore be used accordingly. In many other games, this notion would be absurd...but there seems to be a tendency to put a lot of faith in the books (or if you want to put it negatively, use the books as a reason to become entitled to certain stuff).

Absolutely this, and especially that last phrase. Player entitlement can become a real issue, especially when the DM tries to present his position politely but firmly, and the players simply choose not to listen.


Originally Posted by Black Jester
There is also a certain mindset that clearly puts the GM solely into the role of the entertainer and the players as the ones who are entertained and assume that the game serves basically as a mean to their gratification...and it is one of the issues that can turn running a game from a great experience to a chore. As a player, you are just as responsible for the game as the GM, and this usually includes the acceptance that the roles are what they are - including the acceptance of the GM's authority within the framework of the game.

I've run into that mindset from players, and sometimes no matter what you say, they can't be convinced to see it any differently.

I'm enjoying the game most when all the characters come alive, as unique individuals with their own perspectives, and players are fully immersed in the game world rather than just staring at a stack of numbers on a sheet of paper.

This takes an effort of imagination, though, and unfortunately some players aren't willing to make that effort. My best campaign experiences have been with players who are willing to leap headfirst into that world, and use their own considerable imaginations and sense of character to help create something organic and alive, far more nuanced and involved than the DM could ever devise alone.

Once you reach that degree of immersion, some of these issues of authority tend to fade, but it really does depend on the personalities involved. Sometimes you just get lucky.

CarpeGuitarrem
2013-08-20, 01:23 PM
I feel that the "entertain me, GM!" mentality stems from the consolidation of power into the GM role. If the GM's exercising absolute power over the game, the players will expect to get something out of it in exchange; it's the psychological concept of fairness. The more power you've been given, the more people will expect of you.

On the other hand, decentralizing power (removing it from the GM) also decentralizes responsibility by placing expectations on the players to contribute to the story. This can obviously fall on a spectrum, where GMless games are one datapoint, "rotating GM" games (as in, the GM role rotates during the session) are another datapoint, "low-powered GM" games are a third datapoint, and "high-authority GM" games are a fourth datapoint. There's a lot of wiggle room.

Just an observation.

Black Jester
2013-08-20, 02:24 PM
I honestly see no causal correlation whatsoever between an authoritative GM style leading player self-entitlement. Most classic RPGs up until the 1990s assumed a very central "GM is god" stance to this issue but also assumed that the players are put in a position where they have to be very smart and have to come up with sound strategies (like AD&D or, for example RuneQuest) or the game put a lot of focus on social interaction and style, like the original World of Darkness. Both styles require a lot more effort. At the same time, these old-timey games tended to be a lot less forgiving and less inclined to bow common sense or verisimilitude for the convenience of players (just compare the rules for Healing in AD&D and in D&D 4e).

If there is any connection, it is more likely the other way around: an increasing number of self-entitled players leading to a declining number of authoritative gamemasters, but I think a different explanation makes a little bit more sense: the increasing share of computer games as a time consuming hobby (when compared to the early 1990s and 1980s) where it is actually quite hard to really fail (if you do, you basically reload and try again) has changed the concept of a game insofar that it diminished the tolerance for failure for many players while at the same time offer a similar feeling of gratification for being successful. The more one grows accustomed to certain circumstances, the more one takes them for granted. Most real RPGs I know don't have this feature to fully compensate failure and then just start anew without significant consequence, i.e. failing in an RPG has more severe consequences than failing in a computer game and is therefore a lot less pleasant (and a lot more meaningful, since only by having a true threat of failure, a success isn't instantly shallow) which obviously goes against what a larger share of the player base is used to.
(And yes, computer games have also become a lot more forgiving in the last decade or so, but they often have a stronger competitive element, so that issue is also quite different).

NichG
2013-08-20, 02:31 PM
I feel that the "entertain me, GM!" mentality stems from the consolidation of power into the GM role. If the GM's exercising absolute power over the game, the players will expect to get something out of it in exchange; it's the psychological concept of fairness. The more power you've been given, the more people will expect of you.

And this arrangement can actually work, if the players are sort of aware of their part of that responsibilities too - to allow the DM to do what is necessary for the health of the game as a whole, even if it means that they personally aren't getting everything they want.

The problems show up when one side or the other of this kind of compact doesn't deal in good faith. When players say 'entertain me!' but also 'and do it without exercising any form of GM fiat' then they basically want to have their cake and eat it too. The other way it can go is if the GM abuses his granted powers for self-gratification rather than using them to try to make the game more fun for all involved.

Personally, as a player I'd rather make the deal and give over trust in someone who is actively trying to create a fun experience than to show up with a GM-less game and hope that as a group fun will somehow happen. In terms of 'making a deal', its easier for me to find one person I trust to that degree than to find five people I trust to that degree. I've played at tables with awesome DMs but where there's always one or two players who get on my nerves. When we're all giving the power of arbitration to the GM, those personality conflicts are somewhat moderated compared to what would happen with a rotating GM or a GM-less game.

Then again, my favorite stories and themes tend to be exploration, man-vs-environment, and the like, and those lend themselves to asymmetric models. So I may just be biased.

kyoryu
2013-08-20, 02:36 PM
The DM is responsible for the overall good of the game. As such, they have broad authority to make changes and work 'outside' the rules as necessary.

However, keeping people happy is part of the overall good of the game, and so a good DM knows to compromise.

But a class or race being in a book doesn't mean it's available to players. A spell existing doesn't mean that players can get it, and certainly doesn't mean that it's available at Ye Olde Magic Shoppe. Players are not *entitled* to find the things they want to buy at the shop.

Especially for spells like Wish, it's pretty reasonable to not allow general access to items that cast them, especially if the only cost is gold. The XP cost of Wish is there to prevent the worst abuses of the spell, and to make casting it a sacrifice. Given the XP cost, it's *extremely* reasonable to presume that there aren't wizards mass-producing them.

But at the end of the day, the GM is responsible for running the game, and in whatever way that they feel like. The players can either play the game, or not. There can be compromise and discussion of the specifics, but in no way is the GM ever *obligated* to include something in the game they're running that they don't like, any more than the player is *obligated* to keep coming back to the game.

neonchameleon
2013-08-20, 03:35 PM
I wonder why Monsters get a free pass? If a DM was to re-write skills, feats, class abilities or spells, I'm sure every player would demand to know the changes.

Because all of those are PC abilities. PCs should know within reason about themselves and what they can do. Monster stats are purely behind the DM screen.

Yukitsu
2013-08-20, 04:28 PM
In my view, a DM has to earn enough trust from me to have that kind of authority. I have one fairly authoritative DM, but he's very reasonable, always has an interesting story, and his games are in general, very fun. He does go into the authoritative side of things to keep things from getting beyond what he's capable of personally dealing with, and unfortunately, that is a relatively wide variety of things. By contrast, most DMs just wave their "I'm the DM" stick and I walk. Those DM's haven't shown that they're interesting, fair or fun before they go around shouting edicts like some kind of drill sergeant.

A DM generally shows their nature pretty quickly. Ones that aren't really doing anything interesting in the first place certainly shouldn't be opposed to the players doing something interesting on their own.

Brookshw
2013-08-20, 05:43 PM
Not that I could tell you who is wrong or right or if such a distinction is actually possible, but I can tell you my own experiences from having DM'd for over 20 years (referencing only to establish that I do not take a players point of view).

Everyone joins the table to have fun and that's the first and foremost priority. If as a DM you aren't taking this into account then you may want to reconsider why you're running a game.

Houserules: everyone has them and if handled reasonably they can add to the fun of the game. They should be explained up front as part of character creation so no one is surprised that X suddenly does Y or that Z is not actually possible. Always good to review 1 on 1 if a player is unsure how a rule may effect their planned build. Misunderstandings do happen so be prepared to adjust. "Sorry, I suppose we had a disconnect on what X meant for your character. Fair enough. We'll go with your interpretation for the session and discuss before the next. Worst case scenario you get a full refund on any feats/skills/equipment associated with the misunderstanding if you so desire".

Building Houserules on the fly: You cannot always predict when you may find a RAW rule troublesome if you haven't encountered it previously, and if you have to handle it on the fly I tend to lean towards what benefits the players. The caveat to this is that I tell players at the time I'm not sure this is how it should work but we'll go with it for the moment and discuss between sessions. Then of course real discourse takes place where you and whatever player(s) discuss your points of view, interpretations and concerns.

Player/DM equality in susceptibility to rules and access to sourcebooks: Mostly equal but some books (specifically BoVD) I say up front are banned from players. A villain needs some trick up there sleeve after all and homebrewing is not always great. If I impose a rule on the game it's on the game including whatever villain, monster, NPC and PC may be contained there within.

Resolving conflict: Again, we're here to have fun. If players or DMs have issues with how something is working be it class balance, party balance etc then discuss it with respect. Bottom line I always consider and ask my players, "is this something that will detract from your, or other members of the group, from having a fun time". A mature player polices themselves. Rule interpretation disagreements again can be settled between sessions.

Campaign setting: If something doesn't seem appropriate for the setting this should be established in advance of the campaign itself. Should you need to modify things as the campaign progresses then discuss. Someone wants to use something you don't feel is appropriate, discuss how it could be modified to fit the campaign. I don't want to say "no", I want to say "I like your concept and where you're going with this, what about if we modify X so that the flavors a bit consistent".

Please respect the DM's comfort zone, they're a human being and may only be able to reasonably handle so much.

DM as final arbiter: Well, sure, I guess. Sure IRL sports the players/coaches might argue with the umpire but he still has final say. Frankly, who cares. I'm running games to share a story, be surprised at my players reactions and creativity, and to roll a D20, not to bang a gavel. Please don't make me, especially if there are plenty of other ways to resolve conflict constructively.

Actually I could go on for a long time, best to stop now :smallbiggrin:

jedipotter
2013-08-20, 06:27 PM
Because all of those are PC abilities. PCs should know within reason about themselves and what they can do. Monster stats are purely behind the DM screen.

Well, this makes the determination that somethings are for the players and somethings are not. So monsters are DM only. What about foes that are not monsters, like an evil human wizard. Can the foe wizard have an ability or spell that the PC's don't know about. What about magic items, are they player or DM stuff?

Belril Duskwalk
2013-08-20, 07:11 PM
Well, this makes the determination that somethings are for the players and somethings are not. So monsters are DM only. What about foes that are not monsters, like an evil human wizard. Can the foe wizard have an ability or spell that the PC's don't know about. What about magic items, are they player or DM stuff?

I would definitely say NPC wizards could have spells the PCs don't know about. There are rules for researching new spells, are there not? If a PC wizard that spends most of his year adventuring can find time to craft a brand new spell then an NPC wizard who spends most of his year scheming in the shadows DEFINITELY has time for researching new spells. Of course, if the PCs manage to capture his spellbook, they now have access to the spell as well, so keep it balanced. Same basic idea applies equally to magic items.

kyoryu
2013-08-20, 07:17 PM
I absolutely, and will forever reject the notion that a GM is in any way obligated to use any particular supplement, or even any particular thing from core rules.

Even things that are in the core rules and may be *possibly* available do not need to be *generally* available. And just because opposition has access to something doesn't mean that the players automatically do (though they might possibly *gain* access to it over time).

Of course, any good GM will consider his players' wishes, etc., as part of this. But the general idea that a GM has an obligation to make things available to players strikes me as coercive and counterproductive to the game as a whole.

You may choose to play under an "all supplements are available" policy, of course. And I'm not saying there's anything wrong with that. But I don't think it is, or in any way should be, a requirement.

I know this sounds like I'm Viking-Hatting, but I'm really not promoting that, either. A good GM will listen to what his players want, and work with them to accommodate them. But that doesn't mean there's an *obligation* to add any particular elements to the game.

If Dragonborn aren't in my game world, they're not in my game world. End of story. I have the option of *adding* them on request, but it's not an obligation.

Again, it's not about the Viking Hat. GMs aren't on a level playing field with players. It's not an adversarial game, for one, and so that's unnecessary. And more importantly, the GM's *role* is different, and so different rules apply.

Alaris
2013-08-20, 09:25 PM
Well, I'll give the example of how I run my game, as it's the easiest way to explain it.

I created my own custom Campaign World, so more or less, what I say goes. I decide what spells are allowed (though I'm fairly lenient); I decide what classes are allowed; I decide what items are allowed, etc etc etc.

I am the arbiter. I am the referee. I am the storyteller. I am the Dungeon Master. The players come to play a game, and have accepted me as the Dungeon Master. Therefore, they accept my rules, my calls, my game.

HOWEVER, that is not to say that I do not budge. I have had players come to me, requesting to play something not on the approved list. They have made arguments, ones that are completely valid, and I have allowed it.

I also hold "Rule Sessions." Before game, every once in a while, I allow players to propose new house rules. They are to be voted upon by the players, and if I do not see anything gamebreaking or fun-ruining about them, then I allow them. This has resulted in several houserules that I found quite beneficial to fun for everyone, including (3.5):

Paladins may be the alignment of their chosen god, not just Lawful Good. This allows any god to have Paladins, who must follow a code tailored to that god.
Marshal gains Full Base Attack Bonus.
Sorcerers gain 4+Int Skill Points, as opposed to 2+Int.
Warmage gains Average Base Attack Bonus


To take an example from the first post, I run spells like "Miracle" & "Wish" as fairly rare. You cannot take "Wish" as a spell as a Wizard or Sorcerer. You MUST find a Scroll (yes, even for a Sorcerer), likely through a quest on it's own.

On that note though, I have had a total of 2 Wish Spells cast in my game. 2 Scrolls were found (one cursed, the other not), and the party used them fairly immediately to resolve an impending situation. I will not deny them complete access to the spells, should they reach the appropriate level (17), and choose to go on a quest to find it... but it WILL BE HARD.

Put simply, I run my game in that my word is law. I am willing to listen to compelling arguments, if people have them, but my word is law. If you disagree, then vote with your feet.


Well, this makes the determination that somethings are for the players and somethings are not. So monsters are DM only. What about foes that are not monsters, like an evil human wizard. Can the foe wizard have an ability or spell that the PC's don't know about. What about magic items, are they player or DM stuff?

Well, in my group, every player has read the Monster Manual front to back. So I am more or less forced to use monsters that the player knows every weakness of, or write my own. I choose to alter monsters in the Manual, as well as make my own. It makes things more interesting.

As for NPC Wizards having abilities the players don't know of... perfectly feasible. He could have researched new spells. He could have obtained a Custom Item or Artifact that allows it. I rule that, if he made his own spell... it's something the players could obtain, if they put in the effort.

For instance, if they find his spellbook, or a scroll copy of the spell, they could scribe it into their book and learn it. Or, in the case of items, so long as it is not destroyed (by plot, or them), then they could likely obtain it and use it.

Making new things, even for NPC Wizards, makes things interesting. Or so my own players tell me. They certainly appreciated obtaining their Custom Items, and Custom Spells in the last campaign I ran.

dehro
2013-08-21, 04:23 AM
my current DM declared from the get go that eberron material was off limits, that he disliked monk PCs enough not to want them, that he had simplified/rearranged the flanking rules a little bit (and told us how), that 3rd party materials were a no-no. I don't remember what he said about psionics.. I think we all agreed we didn't like 'em. he also said that any further instances that would occur and seem broken to him, he would rule about as they happened.
He's pretty much let us quite some leeway in any other respect, and yes, we have faced off against a few monks, so what applies to us doesn't necessarily apply to him.
so far, I'm happy with how this is being managed.

neonchameleon
2013-08-21, 05:58 AM
Well, this makes the determination that somethings are for the players and somethings are not. So monsters are DM only. What about foes that are not monsters, like an evil human wizard. Can the foe wizard have an ability or spell that the PC's don't know about. What about magic items, are they player or DM stuff?

Of course NPC wizards can have spells that PCs don't know about. Of course there can be magic items that the PCs do not know about.

The second the PC learns the spell or fully examines the item it becomes PC stuff and should not be changed without very good reason.

dehro
2013-08-21, 07:42 AM
then again, if you go on websites such as dndtools, you find that several spells have 2-5 different versions within the same edition of the game (3.5) according to the source.. so.. there's room to wiggle either way.

Evo_Kaer
2013-08-21, 08:43 AM
then again, if you go on websites such as dndtools, you find that several spells have 2-5 different versions within the same edition of the game (3.5) according to the source.. so.. there's room to wiggle either way.

I guess in that case I would just go with: "We go with the rules of the source material I have available. And NO, it being online does not count as available to me."

Anyway in my groups we usually say which source material can be used. Everything else is subject to special discussion or generally the DM saying 'No'.

CarpeGuitarrem
2013-08-21, 09:07 AM
Apparently "good DM" and "Grumpy Cat" are synonymous now. :smallwink:

Jay R
2013-08-21, 10:11 AM
There are two schools of thought about RPGs, and fireworks happen when DMs and players don't share the same one.

[Warning: I have an opinion, and I won't hide it. This is written from one point of view. To avoid being unfair, I will not characterize the philosophy of the other side; I'll just describe some of its effects. That should be safe, since I'm not trying to convince people to choose my approach over the other one.]

My old-school approach is that role-playing is inherently fun. Tell me the rules and create a world, and I will build a character and have fun with it.

I won't risk describing goals of the new-school approach. Since I don't get it, I'm sure my description would be unfair. But whatever it is, it leads to the notions that the players can use anything they find in any sourcebook, or that encounters have to have an acceptable CR, or that every Core rule must be available, or that PCs should never die, or that PC and NPC rules must be the same, or whatever. These are all mystifying to an old gamer like me.

[I repeat - I don't get it, and won't characterize it. I'm merely pointing out the ways it differs from o0ld-school gaming.]

What is clear to all, I suspect, is that these are two approaches are incompatible, and that the players from one can't play well with the players from the other, just as we can't have a game of "football" in which the Europeans are kicking a round ball and the Americans are throwing an oblong one.


Apparently "good DM" and "Grumpy Cat" are synonymous now. :smallwink:

I suspect that the effect you're seeing is really that "old gamer" and "grumpy cat" are synonymous now.

How grumpy the DM will be is determined by the player actions.

Morgarion
2013-08-21, 11:36 AM
Amen to that, Jay R. It's the kids these days with their source books and pdfs and adventure paths. They don't have any imagination! They don't want to work for anything! They just want it all thought up for them beforehand! Ugh. [/Old man rant]

Tengu_temp
2013-08-21, 12:11 PM
I won't risk describing goals of the new-school approach. Since I don't get it, I'm sure my description would be unfair. But whatever it is, it leads to the notions that the players can use anything they find in any sourcebook, or that encounters have to have an acceptable CR, or that every Core rule must be available, or that PCs should never die, or that PC and NPC rules must be the same, or whatever. These are all mystifying to an old gamer like me.


I think your confusion comes heavily from the fact that you're mashing two different playstyles together here. One of them is the DND 3e/4e-specific "RAW is king" approach, the other one is the narrative approach where telling a cool story is more important than challenging the players with hard fights. They are pretty much incompatible.

CarpeGuitarrem
2013-08-21, 12:13 PM
I think your confusion comes heavily from the fact that you're mashing two different playstyles together here. One of them is the DND 3e/4e-specific "RAW is king" approach, the other one is the narrative approach where telling a cool story is more important than challenging the players with hard fights. They are pretty much incompatible.
Or, rather...there's one playstyle that focuses on generating story through adversity, and another playstyle that focuses on generating story through collaboration. Heavy GM authority tends to come in the systems that focus on adversity over collaboration.

To be honest, a lot of game systems fall somewhere between the two spectrums. Sometimes, there's outliers which include adversity and collaboration at the same time.

But that's a wholly different discussion.

kyoryu
2013-08-21, 02:34 PM
I won't risk describing goals of the new-school approach. Since I don't get it, I'm sure my description would be unfair. But whatever it is, it leads to the notions that the players can use anything they find in any sourcebook, or that encounters have to have an acceptable CR, or that every Core rule must be available, or that PCs should never die, or that PC and NPC rules must be the same, or whatever. These are all mystifying to an old gamer like me.

I think you're actually describing a few things at once. I'll try to separate them:

1) "Don't tell me no!" I don't know if this is a primary or common factor, but there are some players that just can't be told no. RPGs can attract this personality type (especially with more linear games), as RPGs tend to be the only type of game that you just don't lose.

2) Character build as primary game. If building characters and charop is one of the main things you have fun with in the game, then having options removed will bother you.

3) An importance placed on game-as-game, rather than game-as-world. Especially in more railroady games, where the players have little choice in what they encounter, the world aspects get decreased, as the players have no meaningful ability to interact with it - no agency.

4) RPG as series of encounters: This goes hand-in-hand with the previous. If you're not choosing your encounters, you have a right to expect that they'll be appropriately balanced. It's okay for characters to fight and lose to a giant red dragon at level 1 *if they wander into its lair*. It's less okay if the encounter happens because the GM says it will.

(these first four are often tied together)

5) Emphasis on risks other than death. Many RPGs, especially early ones, have death as frequently the only consequence available to players. It's not often an awesome one, especially in games where it's one party of adventurers going through the game - integrating a new level 1 character into a level 10 party is rough. Some RPGs de-emphasize death of characters, and instead add risk through the game by emphasizing what can happen to the world. I think I mentioned this in another thread: "Sure, you're alive. But did you win? The city is nuked, your best friends have turned evil, your girlfriend is now dating your arch enemy, and you're wanted by the police." I think that's a pretty interesting failure consequence, and in many ways a lot more interesting than "you die, roll a new character."

6) Emphasis on different "big questions" than you're used to. Most traditional RPGs, when you start engaging any kind of "encounter/scene" or whatever have as their big question "do the players have enough skill/build optimization to overcome this?" That's not universal. In some games, the question is more "how much is this worth to you?" or "how important is this belief?"


What is clear to all, I suspect, is that these are two approaches are incompatible, and that the players from one can't play well with the players from the other, just as we can't have a game of "football" in which the Europeans are kicking a round ball and the Americans are throwing an oblong one.

Good analogy. But yeah, I agree - people come to the table with vastly differing expectations of what they want, and what needs they expect to get met. If the "I should never die" need isn't met, that player will get upset. Same with the "I should never lose" need (which is different).

You can get some weird cases where you have people with both "I should never lose" and "I want to feel like the situation is tense" needs. That's pretty much inherently contradictory.


I suspect that the effect you're seeing is really that "old gamer" and "grumpy cat" are synonymous now.

Ha! I only get grumpy when people assume I have some kind of obligation to them. I don't. Any more than they have an obligation to me.


Amen to that, Jay R. It's the kids these days with their source books and pdfs and adventure paths. They don't have any imagination! They don't want to work for anything! They just want it all thought up for them beforehand! Ugh. [/Old man rant]

Oh, come on. I thought Jay R at least tried to understand people with opinions other than his. If you disagree with his conclusions, maybe try to explain what's driving the behavior he's seeing and possibly mischaracterizing.


I think your confusion comes heavily from the fact that you're mashing two different playstyles together here. One of them is the DND 3e/4e-specific "RAW is king" approach, the other one is the narrative approach where telling a cool story is more important than challenging the players with hard fights. They are pretty much incompatible.

I'd say there's about three or four playstyles he's mashing, actually.

Even "tell a cool story" is multiple different playstyles - there's the "tell a cool story about what we did" style, which is like telling war stories. There's the "tell me a cool story that I'm a part of" style, which is like DragonLance/adventure paths, and there's "let's tell a story together" which emphasizes player agency in the world and making hard choices. The last two probably *seem* to be the same from a more old-school, world-focused viewpoint, but they're quite different in reality. The "tell a story together", depending on the system, is probably more closely related to the "world immersion" game than the "adventure path".


Or, rather...there's one playstyle that focuses on generating story through adversity, and another playstyle that focuses on generating story through collaboration. Heavy GM authority tends to come in the systems that focus on adversity over collaboration.

I think "adversity" is probably not the term I'd use, if you're talking about "adversarial GMs". If you're talking about the idea of the game as overcoming a series of challenges, I think it's fair. But in that case, the GM is ideally neutral. GM authority and the idea of the GM being adversarial just doesn't work in any meaningful way. If a GM is trying to beat you, they do. Period. They don't even have to resort to "rocks fall, everyone dies". Just by virtue of what opposition they present, how hard they play that opposition, and their ability to control the situation of the encounters, an adversarial GM can *always* win.

I don't mean to say that there aren't adversarial, Viking Hat GMs in games with GM authority. Just that they're dysfunctional and should be avoided at all costs. The point of authority isn't power, it's the responsibility that comes with it. A team's manager is granted power to ensure that the team functions effectively and coordinates well. He's there to serve the team. Authority that doesn't recognize that is bad authority.

And that's the key. I like GM authority in games - it's what makes RPGs flexible. Without GM authority, you may as well be playing a board game. I don't think "bad GMs" is a good reason to get rid of GM authority - I just think it's a good reason to not play with those GMs.

To a great extent, I don't think that there's such a thing as "heavy" GM authority. I think it's pretty much binary. What's the last word in a dispute? It's either the GM, or it's not. There may be games where that authority is more *important* (like most rules-light games). There may be games where there are fewer corner cases that require GM authority. But I still think the authority itself is binary. The GM is the authority, or they're not.

I think for adversarial play to work (as in, the GM is in a truly adversarial role), there really can't be GM authority. It conflicts with the entire idea of adversarial play. I suppose it can work, in some cases, but even then only if the areas where GM authority is applicable are extremely limited. So *maybe* in a very constrained version of an Adventure Path, where the encounters were pre-planned and the GM couldn't deviate.

Rondodu
2013-08-21, 02:56 PM
I read a few months ago an interesting article on the topic. IIRC, it was (a translation of) Theory 101: System and the Shared Imagined Space, by By M. Joseph Young (http://ptgptb.org/0026/theory101-01.html).

CarpeGuitarrem
2013-08-21, 03:57 PM
I think "adversity" is probably not the term I'd use, if you're talking about "adversarial GMs". If you're talking about the idea of the game as overcoming a series of challenges, I think it's fair.
Yeah, that one. "adversity" was the best thing that came to mind at the moment, as a contrast to "antagonistic GM" or something like that. If a game casts the characters as overcoming adversity in the form of challenging obstacles, that suggests the GM needs to have an authority so that they're sufficiently challenged. I find that usually, the games where there's more collaboration tend to be less about characters overcoming challenges set forth for them, and more about getting characters into trouble and making their lives dramatically/amusingly/tragically miserable. Also more about contributing details and ideas to the world and to the story that one person wouldn't come up with. And for that purpose, you have to loose up on the centralized authority to enable that collaboration.

kyoryu
2013-08-21, 07:08 PM
Also more about contributing details and ideas to the world and to the story that one person wouldn't come up with. And for that purpose, you have to loose up on the centralized authority to enable that collaboration.

Fair 'nuff.

I still am not sure about "loosening" the authority. In Fate, I still think the GM needs to be a strong authority - but the *scope* of that authority is reduced. If that makes sense. The GM still acts as the final "authority" in case of dispute, but holds sole ownership of fewer areas (and is explicitly encouraged to work with players as well).

Gwazi Magnum
2013-08-21, 08:28 PM
DM technically has final say and authority.

But I've had a DM in the past ride this way too much and lose his groups cause of it. The main thing all DM's need to remember are that there is no DM without a group, and although it is not meant to be played such a way it is easier for players to play without a DM than it is for a DM to play without players.

Basically, you need to make sure the game is fun and enjoyable for the players. If it isn't, the DM isn't doing their job right and there might as well not be a campaign to begin with. D&D is designed to be fun, not for DM's to rub their ego and exercise authority over others.

It's a balance, if the DM can never reinforce rules to go by the game is in chaos because it has no kind of order to it. But the DM in forces too much you lose the very reason you started playing to begin with. Players should learn to let some things go for the sake of the campaign as the DM does need to make decisions and make some sacrifices for the sake of the game. But if it is clear the DM is clinging onto something none of the players want... it may be a case of the DM is in the wrong group or at least there is a conflict that will not end well if the DM persists in holding onto it.

Also any house rule variations from d&d need to be discussed well in advance to the players.
Nothing is worse than the DM making up rules that the players never agreed too. When players sign up for the campaign they sign up to play under the rules in the book. If you want to use rules outside of the books it is your job as a DM to inform said players before hand. If you are introducing a rule part way through a campaign I would suggest put a vote on it, because if the DM is allowed to throw in as many house rules as they want after the game started you might as well of had the players walk in blind from the start.

There are dangers to always siding with players or DMs... those dangers are usually...

DM: The players are unhappy, the DM gets to do anything they want with no restraint. He can go crazy, exert control and rub his ego as he pleases and it does nothing but make players upset and not enjoy the game.

-Real Life Example
In my first ever d&d group I played in the DM was like this. He hates being argued with or disagreed with. He feels the need to always to be right and loses his temper quickly when questioned. He will do things like take all the players gold cause he's bored, make you pay gold to not be locked up in a **** box and them be docked XP for 'not roleplaying' for being locked in a **** box. He will in the middle of a campaign change how a feat works to be much weaker after a player has chosen it, and not allow the player to swap feats.

Note this is probably close the worst kind of DM anyone would ever have for a game. Since when his campaign unavoidably fail he will sabotage others campaigns blaming the players for it ending. But it does serve as a good example of what can happen when the DM assumes he has absolute control with no questions being asked.

Players: The campaign becomes easy streak. Players get everything they want, there is no flavour, no challenge, no order. If responsible the players can keep on track maybe, but there is no hard places rules preventing things from happening and nothing to stop or slow the players down from anything defeating the purpose of the game.

-Real Life Example
This was not a group I was ever in. But an old player in one of the groups I was in. One who had quit because he wasn't getting his way in the game was part of a Call of Cthulhu game. But to start with... they did not actually use the Call of Cthulhu book or rules. They substitute it with GURPs... that's fine.

But, this campaign is now over. And only one player ever died... anyone who even knows the basics of Cthulhu should know something is fishy here (and no, no one ever went insane either). And how did this player die? From his soul being sucked out of body? Insta-killed by Cthulhu himself? Sacrificed by Cultists in a ritual? No, the player was mauled... by a bear, on the side of the road.

Then the player who used to be in our group who was in this group survives a bomb... right up against him. Surrounded by 5 cultists in a car, he holds a bomb to himself and it explodes killing all 5 cultists and he comes out of the wreckage like nothing happened. Even in D&D that would never happen unless if you had ridiculous health and DR.

And how does this campaign end? They win...
No, you heard me right. They, win. They basically commit genocide by killing every cultist there is... and by this logic the Gods cannot be summoned now. But someone who knew even the very basics of Cthulhu knows cultists aren't even needed for such a thing. And what's the defense for this? Cthulhu being a hard game and unbeatable... is a stereotype and they were merely being original...

Now, if you know about Cthulhu and/or have played it you get fully well how messed up and silly this is. For those who don't, just know this basically beats every rule, every piece of lore, and every kind of reason to play a Cthulhu game to begin with. It's as if you took d&d, took away levels, took away gold and classes. You were all just gods... and anything you demand comes to you without question.

Basically, players getting free-reign without control will break the game itself, the very reason to play it to start with and any kind of meaningfulness to the game or accomplishments because there was no challenge to it at all. And to note, in this game it's not a case of players always over ruling the DM, but DM catering to whatever the players wanted... which has basically the exact same affect on the game.

TLDR: Keep a balance. Always siding with the DM or always siding with the Player will lead a campaign to it's end.
Complete DM control just let's power to go their head and the players will ultimately stop enjoying themselves.
Complete Player control drains any purpose and meaning in the adventure and removes any kind of order or reasonable limits.

And always remember, it is meant to be fun for everyone... but most of the group is players. A DM is nothing without their players, and although players might go on without a set DM... having a DM is pretty much vital for a steady campaign.

shadow_archmagi
2013-08-21, 08:35 PM
Game is a cooperative venture. Everyone involved should make clear beforehand what elements they feel should be incorporated, and what themes and trends they consider important. "How much do we want to powergame today guys?" should definitely be a question that everyone answers and agrees on.

Generally, as the group's organizer and primary voice, the DM should take it upon himself to restrict access to materials he feels won't be cohesive to a fun game, but if the group as a whole feels that those spells/feats/etc would be, then they should have a conversation about whether it'd be more productive for the DM to adjust his standards, or for the players to adjust theirs, or perhaps even to accept that there's a fundamental difference in expectations and someone else should DM.

Generally it works better if the players adjust their standards rather than the DM- If the DM is uncomfortable with the game he's running, he generally won't run it as well, and everyone's quality of experience will suffer.

Gwazi Magnum
2013-08-21, 08:44 PM
If the DM is uncomfortable with the game he's running, he generally won't run it as well, and everyone's quality of experience will suffer.

This is a fair point that I didn't consider in my previous post.

Though it does then become a balance of a campaign the DM is comfortable in and a campaign the DM is just exerting too much control over and not making it fun to play. But in that case it would probably just be best to have a different DM.

Lorsa
2013-08-22, 05:13 AM
My old-school approach is that role-playing is inherently fun. Tell me the rules and create a world, and I will build a character and have fun with it.

There are other ways to do role-playing?

GungHo
2013-08-22, 08:19 AM
There are other ways to do role-playing?

Apparently

CarpeGuitarrem
2013-08-22, 09:14 AM
Fair 'nuff.

I still am not sure about "loosening" the authority. In Fate, I still think the GM needs to be a strong authority - but the *scope* of that authority is reduced. If that makes sense. The GM still acts as the final "authority" in case of dispute, but holds sole ownership of fewer areas (and is explicitly encouraged to work with players as well).
It definitely works; I've seen it work. :smallsmile: The archetypal (and roughly popular) extreme example is Fiasco, where the GM's authority is redistributed around the table, so that each player gets some of it. When it's your turn to feature your character in a scene, you get some GM-like control: you can either choose how the scene opens, or to have the power to make it end well/poorly for your character. It's also a situation where players already know they're making characters who are supposed to churn the wheels of a giant catastrophe drama machine.

If there's any dispute about "the final word", you either go to the book or else find a solution agreeable to all players. Generally, though, the most fun is had when players can compromise quickly and move forward. (I think that the one-shot expectation of the game helps with that; you're not so concerned with protecting your character, and there's ways to be successful even if your character dies in the middle of the game.)

There's a lot more possibilities in roleplaying beyond "the GM makes up a situation and lets the characters participate in it." :smallsmile:

Lorsa
2013-08-22, 09:25 AM
Apparently

Yes I know, I was joking. Roleplaying is an extremely diverse hobby, more so than most. However, Jay R's statement fits very closely with my own preferences. And I am not that oldschool, or so I thought. :smallsmile:

Gwazi Magnum
2013-08-22, 10:19 AM
It definitely works; I've seen it work. :smallsmile: The archetypal (and roughly popular) extreme example is Fiasco, where the GM's authority is redistributed around the table, so that each player gets some of it. When it's your turn to feature your character in a scene, you get some GM-like control: you can either choose how the scene opens, or to have the power to make it end well/poorly for your character. It's also a situation where players already know they're making characters who are supposed to churn the wheels of a giant catastrophe drama machine.

If there's any dispute about "the final word", you either go to the book or else find a solution agreeable to all players. Generally, though, the most fun is had when players can compromise quickly and move forward. (I think that the one-shot expectation of the game helps with that; you're not so concerned with protecting your character, and there's ways to be successful even if your character dies in the middle of the game.)

There's a lot more possibilities in roleplaying beyond "the GM makes up a situation and lets the characters participate in it." :smallsmile:

I'm currently in a GURPs group under a similar model.

Basically 4/5 of us had gotten together before hand and made the world together. In the end everyone felt attached and bonded to the world so we figured it most appropriate that a player takes over as DM when it's related to something they created or we're entering a quest-line that they thought up.

It seems to serve well to get peoples mind going and more motivated to see the campaign keep going. However this model doesn't come without weaknesses.

Basically, it opens the door to abuse. It allows someone who is clearly not good to be a DM (or has proven to be a bad DM in the past) to take over. Obviously the group can all vote "no you may not DM" but that leads to bad feelings in the group.

But we do have the back-up of 'If' the DM does anything too out of hand the group does have power to veto that action. But that again leads to bad feelings in the group and requires the players to be willing to stand up to something and not just keep their mouth shut out of fear of causing conflict.

Two examples of how this can turn bad if curious, otherwise skip. What's typed above is basically the gist of the system anyways.

-There are TLDR's in there if you don't feel like a long read but are still curious.


Example 1: Now originally it was 5 players who made the world, not 4. But the fifth player quit as a result of the DM control issue stated above (and his creations removed as well afterwards). Basically this player was the Mary Sue kind of player. He always wants to be in the center, he always wants to win, he wants to be the best. And he hates when other players get an advantage that might mean he is not the clear best character there is.

So naturally, other players do not want to be the 'side kicks' but their own characters. So we built our characters accordingly where each had their own advantages (Along with making certain orders with the world creation system we had). Basically this led to the player losing his temper constantly declaring everyone was cheating, and would reffer to some player advantages as 'batteries' claiming they were nothing more than a cheap power grab (when ironically all he himself did was cheap power grabs).

He constantly threatened as DM he would fix and correct these issues. Basically saying "Once I'm DM you're going to lose everything I have an issue with (anything that he doesn't have) to make things fair and right". Luckily this was met with enough rebuttal that he quit on his own free will and we didn't need to kick him out of the group over the constant threatening to ruin the game for everyone else.

TLDR: Player got mad whenever anyone had an advantage he didn't. Threatened to strip all the advantages other players had once he was DM. Basically the weakness highlighted here is that in a game where any player has the potential to be DM it opens the door for the "Mary Sue" and "Gimme Gimme" type of players to use it as an aggressive power grab.

Example 2: This player actually joined after the world was finished. Hence the 4/5 players comment above.
The thing here is this player had a history of DM'ing previous campaigns... and dying horribly. The details are actually in an earlier post on this thread but to go through them again quickly...

He hated any player disagreeing with him, he would fine you gold to avoid being locked away in a box and unable to take part in the game. He makes habits of stripping players of all their gear (and never to be returned) for fun. He tries rules like penalties for having too high listen/spot checks, weakening feats after players have taken them and denying them the ability to retrain the feat.

Obviously, his campaigns end up falling apart and not lasting. And he always replies to this by joining in the following campaign and sabotaging it as a way of getting back at the players. Now, this campaign hasn't gone on long enough for me to know for sure if that's his plan again. But the glaring weaknesses are still there of "Players looking to sabotage a game gaining DM powers" and "Player who has proven to be horrid DM's in the past can still DM even if it's best for the group that they don't".

TLDR: Player had past experience killing campaigns with bad DM'ing at players expense. Usually blames players for it and sabotages future campaigns as revenge. Giving such person ability to be DM in a multi-DM game means a horrid DM can be a DM even if no one wants it and/or it is simply better for the group if they never DM. And it gives someone who may be looking to actually sabotage/kill a campaign DM like powers and authority.

dehro
2013-08-23, 02:24 AM
Apparently

http://www.gkworld.com/media/img/gkworld/W377-H377-Bffffff/I/item81337_jpg.jpg

Vovix
2013-08-23, 06:57 AM
The DM can make any changes to the rules he wants, as long as they are made clear before the game. It's not fair to the player if he invests half his character's starting gold in Resurrection diamonds and then finds out the spell is banned in the middle of the game. You can ban things, but the players should be allowed to build their characters around that and also possibly dispute the ban without interfering with the game's flow.

Jay R
2013-08-23, 10:26 AM
The DM can make any changes to the rules he wants, as long as they are made clear before the game.

It should only be clear before the game if it would be clear to the characters. I'm starting a game now in which dragons are about horse-sized at most. But they are rare, the players don't know anyone who's seen them, and travelers tell the legends about gigantic beasts.

Similarly, my Goblins are of mostly animalistic intelligence, and when they are seen riding wolves, the alpha wolf is in command, not a goblin. They won't know that until they learn it, because nobody in their country knows it yet.


It's not fair to the player if he invests half his character's starting gold in Resurrection diamonds and then finds out the spell is banned in the middle of the game.

This isn't unfairness. It's incompetence, on the part of both the DM and the player.

Why would the character start collecting diamonds? If there is no Resurrection spell in the world, then the character doesn't have any knowledge of what the material component for it would be.

The player should have checked to find out if the character would have any knowledge of the spell before buying a component, and the DM should have stopped him from using out-of-game knowledge the instant the character tried to buy the diamonds.


You can ban things, but the players should be allowed to build their characters around that and also possibly dispute the ban without interfering with the game's flow.

Usually. Sometimes there's a good reason for a ban that a character doesn't know yet. The various gods of the dead may have found a way to stop it from working, and the players may someday go on a quest to destroy the Temple of Death. Flame spells might not work because of a problem on the Plane of Fire.

But yes, in general the players should know the rules that their starting characters will use, exceptions should be rare, and the DM should have a specific game-related reason for any exception.

Amphetryon
2013-08-23, 10:31 AM
The player should have checked to find out if the character would have any knowledge of the spell before buying a component, and the DM should have stopped him from using out-of-game knowledge the instant the character tried to buy the diamonds.The notion that a Player needs to proactively ask if things listed in the PHb (or other game's equivalent) are available or not - rather than the GM making the guidelines clear up front - feels odd and a bit draconian to me, even as an old-school DM.

GungHo
2013-08-23, 11:05 AM
Yes I know, I was joking. Roleplaying is an extremely diverse hobby, more so than most. However, Jay R's statement fits very closely with my own preferences. And I am not that oldschool, or so I thought. :smallsmile:

Mine do too. I was rattling your cage. No worries.

danatblair
2013-08-23, 11:10 AM
The dm may be god, but you can always choose which god you worship.

One of my biggest pet peeves is not having a choice, and it being obvious. There's a difference between setting up a story so that one path is advantageous but some scenarios are really just not fun.

Hey, x items was stolen. Go get it .... no you couldn't see or detect the thief. no no magic was involved. ....
Whoops, party captured in sleep ... no saving throws .. no argument ... hey jailbreak story ..!!!1 yay

It's not fun to have the dm point out that you don't really have that much power in the grand scheme of things.

I see it as more of a negotiation between myself, the other players, and the dm. If a friend and I are playing trolls, and tend to cause the party to get massively sidetracked when we cause a nested Russian toy thing of plot tangents ... it's fair to remember that everyone else needs some time too. If we spent a week or two doing troll stuff, I'd try to let everyone one else get their couple of weeks of personal story. It's not just between me and the dm.

And between me and the gm, I might be willing to go along with a plot if I feel like I am being respected. Instead of just having an item disappearing, maybe have me need to give the item to someone who needs it at location x. The end result is the same as if it was stolen and appeared at location x, when i tracked it down. This way doesn't treat me like an idiot, ignore any perception abilities I (or the party have), and make me feel powerless.

Instead of just ambushing me in the night and waking up in a dungeon, create a situation where If I surrender I get jailed but some random npc is spare a horrible fate, or another party member is spared, or maybe i have a contact on hte inside. I still am stripped of gear. The gm still gets his story. I don't feel like a punk who has no power. In fact, I feel like I was doing the right thing by not using all the power at my disposal. And I willingly allowed the gm to have his say without feeling like I was wronged.

really, I hate being railroaded. Nothing ticks me off more. And really, it's mostly because some of my gms use adventure modules from the 90's where that crap flew. a railroad is a sign of a story that doesn't accept the fact that players at least want the illusion of power and free will.

Gwazi Magnum
2013-08-23, 01:31 PM
The reply's I typed below reminded me...

I hate it when the DM says he needs to 'approve' characters before hand.
Granted this could simply be cause the only DM I ever had who did this outright admitted he did it to shoot down well made characters so it would be easy for him in encounters (The DM the one who can basically use any amount of monsters he wants... needs to nerf the players too... -.-).

But really that just seems like the biggest of **** moves. For a DM to go "So, you are allowed to use all these sources... but only if you don't use it effectively enough. If I find you did too good a job making your character you need to go back and make them suck some more".

Granted, most DM's probably use the 'character approval' method to simply catch anything they don't allow in their games personally power level unrelated. But for gods sake, just tell the players before hand what isn't allowed and don't send them back to drawing boards for hours cause you're too lazy to give them a list of what is and isn't allowed.

Double checking sheets to make sure they're not breaking the rules? That's one thing, approving or disapproving characters for being too good or using sources you never bothered to say weren't allowed... that's just low.


It should only be clear before the game if it would be clear to the characters. I'm starting a game now in which dragons are about horse-sized at most. But they are rare, the players don't know anyone who's seen them, and travelers tell the legends about gigantic beasts.

-snip-

Why would the character start collecting diamonds? If there is no Resurrection spell in the world, then the character doesn't have any knowledge of what the material component for it would be.

The player should have checked to find out if the character would have any knowledge of the spell before buying a component, and the DM should have stopped him from using out-of-game knowledge the instant the character tried to buy the diamonds.

-snip-

But yes, in general the players should know the rules that their starting characters will use, exceptions should be rare, and the DM should have a specific game-related reason for any exception.

I'd have to disagree.
Players are fairly capable to not use out of game knowledge in game.
So if in game there is an event or exception that completely kills or alters a character class/concept players should know.
Just because it is meant to be secret is no reason to allow a player to put a lot of effort in a character and then be told no.

They don't know there's no resurrections spell either unless if the DM tells them. Hence why the DM is expected to tell players of changes like that made. That's basically saying "The player should know what's been banned without the DM having to say what's been banned".

If the core rules state it exists, the player shouldn't have to check. That's like me checking if I can be a Dwarf Fighter...
And there's a big chance the players make characters in their own time. Where DM would not be able to stop them right as something happened.

Honestly, if stuff needs to be secret for plot I get it. But I don't think that means you let players blindly make characters that won't work they way they want it to (and would work that way if done by the official rules alone).

Now, it's a little different if you only allowed certain books... The players are expected to stick in those books. But if the DM says something like 'Use all the books/offical sources' and nothing else... well then it's the DM's fault.


really, I hate being railroaded. Nothing ticks me off more. And really, it's mostly because some of my gms use adventure modules from the 90's where that crap flew. a railroad is a sign of a story that doesn't accept the fact that players at least want the illusion of power and free will.

I can agree that railroading can be annoying. But sometimes it is understandable depending on how long the DM had to prepare how much the players possibly screwed over the DM's plans (leaving his lost).

Note: If the DM planned one specific path and expected the players to never deviate... he did it wrong and the players wandering off is the DMs own fault.

If however the DM kept it open, but the players still somehow got the best of the DM... well, that's how d&d works.

What would bug me more than the railroad though is the means and reasoning.

If the DM doing it because they were backed to a wall?
Is the DM doing it just to make it easier?
Is the DM like my original one? Doing it for no reason other to try to exercise control over people?

Is the DM making a fairly realistic situation where only one solution would probably work.
Is the DM simply not allowing people to roll (outright ignoring the effort people put in their characters)?

Alex12
2013-08-23, 02:55 PM
The reply's I typed below reminded me...

I hate it when the DM says he needs to 'approve' characters before hand.
Granted this could simply be cause the only DM I ever had who did this outright admitted he did it to shoot down well made characters so it would be easy for him in encounters (The DM the one who can basically use any amount of monsters he wants... needs to nerf the players too... -.-).

But really that just seems like the biggest of **** moves. For a DM to go "So, you are allowed to use all these sources... but only if you don't use it effectively enough. If I find you did too good a job making your character you need to go back and make them suck some more".

The thing is, DMs have lives too. They can't read and memorize every book out there, but that doesn't mean the players won't want to use them. For example, in the campaign I'm currently in, I've got a Necropolitan Dread Necromancer backup character for when/if my current character dies, and the DM was fine with that. So Libris Mortis and Heroes of Horror are okay. I then mentioned the possibility of playing a Necropolitan Tainted Scholar Wizard. He said something to the effect of "I don't know, but it's probably okay. Let me take a look." Then, after looking at it, said it was off-limits. I understand the decision.
For that matter, Leadership is Core, and I suspect more DMs disallow that than allow it.

Personally, when I DM, I want to approve characters, or at least character concepts. Powerful characters are one thing, cheese is another. And, if an option a player picked is too powerful, I'm more than happy to work with that player to find a suitable compromise.

Jay R
2013-08-23, 04:03 PM
The notion that a Player needs to proactively ask if things listed in the PHb (or other game's equivalent) are available or not - rather than the GM making the guidelines clear up front - feels odd and a bit draconian to me, even as an old-school DM.

If you aren't high enough level to cast Resurrection, and you are collecting components for it, then you are using information that you know your character doesn't know.

If you are high enough level, then yes, of course you have a list of the spells you know. But you don't know about spells you don't know.

danatblair
2013-08-23, 04:47 PM
The reply's I typed below reminded me...




I can agree that railroading can be annoying. But sometimes it is understandable depending on how long the DM had to prepare how much the players possibly screwed over the DM's plans (leaving his lost).

Note: If the DM planned one specific path and expected the players to never deviate... he did it wrong and the players wandering off is the DMs own fault.

If however the DM kept it open, but the players still somehow got the best of the DM... well, that's how d&d works.

What would bug me more than the railroad though is the means and reasoning.

If the DM doing it because they were backed to a wall?
Is the DM doing it just to make it easier?
Is the DM like my original one? Doing it for no reason other to try to exercise control over people?

Is the DM making a fairly realistic situation where only one solution would probably work.
Is the DM simply not allowing people to roll (outright ignoring the effort people put in their characters)?

The dm did it on multiple occasions because the book had no other option written in it. We were literally in a story that had no paths, once we were on a plot adventure. You know what we did, anything but plot adventures until we were outright forced to. We knew that doing one of the adventures the path had written meant that we had no say in teh outcome o events and were often just there to witness events. It was awesome.

However, I consider there to never be a valid reason for it. It the same thing as saying, "I have only planned on doing one thing and nothing anyone does will change my plans. " If the dm wants to tell stories to himself I am not needed to be there at all.

let's go over the reasoning you mentioned-

back into a wall-
So, he's not very creative on his feet and is therefore justified? I have ran games too. While players have a habit of doing anything but what I want them to, which does not give me the right to literally tell them what happens to them.

I am more of the type to just have a living word. If they refuse to investigate something I planed, but decided to go after something I had hoped would wait I'll just change my plans and up the challenge on what they ignored but maybe let them cut another problem off at the pass.

making it easier-
So it is easer when the players lack free will? Yes, I's agree that it is. but, why are you playing a roleplaying game then? If the fact that players will go off topic is something you don't like, don't dm.

Power trips-
I have never actually run into this personally. I'd likely leave any game where this happened.

a realistic situation where there is only one way out-
well, as the dm is either writing the story or using a book this doesn't get any slack from me. Pre-gen adventures that do this are annoying. Dms that do it on their own volition are worse. I don't know that there are that many realistic situations that have only one way out. Sounds like bad writing really. Sometimes there can be terrible choices that are not very good. There can be several paths that unappealing. Actions can have consequences that are lasting. That is not the same thing as no way out. And really, it's often only the dm that does nto see a way in this case. After the second or third time someone asks .. well, what about x? if the answer is still no I really start to wonder who can't think of ways out.

no rolls-
Honestly, this seems to be the railroading that fuels the others. Once the players start to realize something is up they ask questions. Once all the answers come back no, it's time to sit and the table and wait to be told what your fate is. this can really be a sub-version of the others.

My basic take at this point is: you get one.
In an average campaign that lats 1-3 years I'll take one bogus kidnapping/railroading/ ambush/sold to slavery event. It's not an uncommon trope in literature. I'll play along once for sure. It it happens a second time, i'll rethink what i am doing on game nights. A third time (Which I have seen happen) and i'll likely walk.

I do not ever consider there to be a valid excuse to remove free will from players. capture scenarios might sound fun to write, but they are not always fun to play. After a few of them, they get old. There is no reason for players to show up if they are not actually going to play. If it's an event that they are in on with the dm, or there is some understanding in the group, there is consent. at that point it is not railroading because there is some sort of consensus. However, for me I am pretty much railroaded out. I do not give my consent freely. You have to earn it, and you should not expect it. If you abuse it I will walk.

horseboy
2013-08-23, 06:30 PM
Well, as far as the OP goes, I've never ran 3.x or 4 so I've never had that problem. The GM is always right, even when he's wrong. My usual attitude is that the GM is the one that's put forth the most effort in this whole thing, so it's his word that goes. Anybody who things they can do better is free to run something else next week.

Gwazi Magnum
2013-08-23, 06:36 PM
-snip-

Those are some pretty good points you got there and points I find myself agreeing with.

As for the power trip. My very first DM (actual game DM, I never counter stuff like d&d encounters) it was basically one big power trip for him. This was over a year ago and when he recently got another chance at DM'ing just a month or so ago it was the same story. And he holds grudges when players speak up and/or leave over it. Grudges to the point he'll carry it to be bitter even when not playing and will make efforts to sabotage whatever campaign follows his.

This is where I normally find the 'make it easy' reason happen. Granted any DM would find railroading easier and are sometimes tempted to do it. But normally the DM's I find doing this, are those who are making it easier for the to get back to their power trip and ego rubbing scenarios.

dehro
2013-08-23, 09:42 PM
Those are some pretty good points you got there and points I find myself agreeing with.

As for the power trip. My very first DM (actual game DM, I never counter stuff like d&d encounters) it was basically one big power trip for him. This was over a year ago and when he recently got another chance at DM'ing just a month or so ago it was the same story. And he holds grudges when players speak up and/or leave over it. Grudges to the point he'll carry it to be bitter even when not playing and will make efforts to sabotage whatever campaign follows his.

This is where I normally find the 'make it easy' reason happen. Granted any DM would find railroading easier and are sometimes tempted to do it. But normally the DM's I find doing this, are those who are making it easier for the to get back to their power trip and ego rubbing scenarios.

clearly you need to dump the guy from your gaming circle and limit your interactions with him to non gaming events. the way you describe him, he's the kind of moron who is both a terrible loser and a worse winner. might be a great guy on other fronts, just don't game with him though.

as for character vetting... I find it natural and would ask to do the same, if I were DMing. characters need to fit in the setting and the general feel of the campaign, and only the DM master knows if your character (and the combination of characters of the whole party) stands a fighting chance.
also, checking your combined characters he may notice your team lacks something that he knows you'll need.. and he might decide to create an appropriate NPC to cover for that.. but he needs to know in advance.

Amphetryon
2013-08-23, 11:42 PM
If you aren't high enough level to cast Resurrection, and you are collecting components for it, then you are using information that you know your character doesn't know.

If you are high enough level, then yes, of course you have a list of the spells you know. But you don't know about spells you don't know.

This is only true if other, higher level, casters don't exist in the world (which is unlikely but theoretically possible) AND Spellcraft and Knowledge: Arcana (or their equivalent in another system) do not exist in the campaign world (which is considerably more unlikely, assuming arcane magic is a thing), OR you're forcing the entire campaign to take place so far away from any civilization and with so little downtime that research is in no way viable (which, to my way of thinking, is draconian). The combination of the first two is extraordinarily unlikely in a world that actually has extant magic users of some stripe, while I wouldn't consider any of the above to be redeeming qualities in a game I'd want to continue playing.

Mr Beer
2013-08-24, 12:22 AM
clearly you need to dump the guy from your gaming circle and limit your interactions with him to non gaming events. the way you describe him, he's the kind of moron who is both a terrible loser and a worse winner. might be a great guy on other fronts, just don't game with him though.

This, such a non problem "this guy is a terrible person to game with", don't game with him. It's like the "my GF is always cheating on me" problem.

Gwazi Magnum
2013-08-24, 01:21 AM
clearly you need to dump the guy from your gaming circle and limit your interactions with him to non gaming events. the way you describe him, he's the kind of moron who is both a terrible loser and a worse winner. might be a great guy on other fronts, just don't game with him though.

as for character vetting... I find it natural and would ask to do the same, if I were DMing. characters need to fit in the setting and the general feel of the campaign, and only the DM master knows if your character (and the combination of characters of the whole party) stands a fighting chance.
also, checking your combined characters he may notice your team lacks something that he knows you'll need.. and he might decide to create an appropriate NPC to cover for that.. but he needs to know in advance.

That was the solution we had when we started GURPs.
But then he started constantly asking others in the group until they let him in.
Now, the others claim he's doing fine (He's only played one week so far and it was a week I had to get some sleep due a previous lack to sleep to deal with college business the next day so I was barely there) but for the brief time I was there
he acted as if my tiredness was as attempt to harm the group and said in a very aggressive tone "Don't try to bring down the campaign Gwazi".

The aggressiveness he's bringing in this early, and his pushiness to getting in (and the way he's doing it, it's giving me the feeling that he's looking to sabotage this campaign like did a previous one I DM'd in the past [he acted very similarly then too] and when I get feelings like this they're rarely wrong... usually if I ignore them they bite me in the butt later saying 'Oh, you thought you were being irrational by worrying this would happen? Well you weren't!'. It is making me strongly consider dropping out, we already lost one player who was being a problem player (look at any forum regarding Player D to get that run-down) and that was stress from the game for over a year. I am not in the mood to giving another player with a bad track record another chance when I've already spent a year dealing with crap like this. So... yea, if the rest of the group doesn't want to do anything, I'm most likely leaving so I can enjoy my Saturdays again. It's a shame though since it was a good campaign too.

*sigh* Looks like a ranted a bit there... sorry about that! :smallbiggrin:

As for the Character vetting, I totally get a DM looking over sheets beforehand to prepare the campaign for them and/or give them pointers. I just don't like a DM approving/vetoing characters if the players followed all the established rules. Obviously though if they got a massive hole like "You're missing a magic caster" the DM should warn the group, but how the group solves that should be up to them, not from character denying (and honestly, the NPC idea would probably serve the best here).



This, such a non problem "this guy is a terrible person to game with", don't game with him. It's like the "my GF is always cheating on me" problem.

If it was just dealing with that player, I would of left long ago. Hell I had no problem leaving his campaign when he went bad. (In fact since I got locked in a **** box during the most of one session in his campaign for not forking out my gold like a DM bitch I was locked out from the game for so long that on Pokemon Black 2 I got through 2 routes, a Gym and a entire graveyard tower, and I still wasn't allowed back in when I finished all that. Then at the end of the campaign he tried giving me an XP penalty for 'not roleplaying in the game enough by being locked in the **** box'. I got up and quit at that point).

It's the fact it's a campaign story I actually want to be in and the fact there are people there other than him who are actually fun to play d&d with that makes me stay. Though... with the multi-DM style this player would at some point be able to DM again for some sessions, and I've been debating (assuming I stayed in the campaign) if for his days if I should even bother playing or not.

Mr Beer
2013-08-24, 01:46 AM
I simply wouldn't let him play in games I was running and I wouldn't turn up to games he was running, problem solved. I'm too old to waste time associating with aggressive, game-wrecking douchebags. I understand it can be difficult to say no to people sometimes but if they actively screw up a campaign you're running, it gets a lot easier, at least for me.

big teej
2013-08-24, 10:06 AM
to put it succinctly, and not eloquently at all.

it is the DM's obligation to create a game that is fun and interesting for the players.

it is the DM's prerogative to design this game HOWEVER he sees fit, and be honest and up front about alterations he is making to the game. pray he does not alter it further

it is the player's choice to participate in the game or not, but once the player has sat down and rolled up a character, having been forwarned about the nature of the game. they have agreed to the premise of the game, and the foibles of the Dungeon Master.

be those foibles "no gnomes." "elves are a lithe, pointy haired people who excel at poverty" or "all spell DCs are 1d20 + stuff instead of a flat formula"

The DM's word is law. (at his table, in his game)
if the players are at the table, they abide by this law.

tl;dr
what the DM says, goes.
DM says stupid stuff, the players go too.

Knaight
2013-08-24, 12:46 PM
Amen to that, Jay R. It's the kids these days with their source books and pdfs and adventure paths. They don't have any imagination! They don't want to work for anything! They just want it all thought up for them beforehand! Ugh. [/Old man rant]
Source books have been there from day 1 of D&D. The .pdf format is nothing more than a different way to store information. As for adventure paths, those also date to extremely early D&D. Your criticism is incoherent.

As for the rest of this, I'll just note that Jay R. is ignoring a lot of styles, picking the old one that sounds the best and calling it old-school, and picking the new one that sounds the worst and calling it new school. You, meanwhile, are jumping on this information and exaggerating things yet further. It would be just as fair (not very) to characterize things this way:

Old School: You play a disposable pawn which probably doesn't even have a name as they move around a board dungeon collecting points loot. Creativity in character generation is non-existent, as all you do is roll and then pick a class, and creativity in play pretty much consists of your skill in making extremely meticulous lists of what places you search/poke with a stick/whatever. As you play, you get more loot and numbers get bigger.

New School: You play a character, in a game that is probably focused around conflict between characters, institutions, etc, and the implications of those things regarding the characters played. There are likely mechanics in character creation regarding who your character is as well as what they can do, and these likely require you to come up with apt and succinct phrases of aspects of their identity, with a creative character well described rewarded by the game. The rest of the game is then about role-playing and story-building, and there are probably mechanics that allow players to directly influence story direction beyond just playing their character.


And that's the key. I like GM authority in games - it's what makes RPGs flexible. Without GM authority, you may as well be playing a board game. I don't think "bad GMs" is a good reason to get rid of GM authority - I just think it's a good reason to not play with those GMs.

To a great extent, I don't think that there's such a thing as "heavy" GM authority. I think it's pretty much binary. What's the last word in a dispute? It's either the GM, or it's not. There may be games where that authority is more *important* (like most rules-light games). There may be games where there are fewer corner cases that require GM authority. But I still think the authority itself is binary. The GM is the authority, or they're not.
It's really not binary. To use an example here - Shock: Social Science Fiction is a game that doesn't have "a GM" per se. It's not even a rotating GM set up, really. What it is is a set up where GMing duties are distributed around the table depending on the area of in game play. Player A might have GMing duties when it comes to diplomacy, Player B might have GMing duties in star ship battles, player C may have GMing duties for exploration, etc.

kyoryu
2013-08-24, 01:33 PM
As for the rest of this, I'll just note that Jay R. is ignoring a lot of styles, picking the old one that sounds the best and calling it old-school, and picking the new one that sounds the worst and calling it new school. You, meanwhile, are jumping on this information and exaggerating things yet further. It would be just as fair (not very) to characterize things this way:

Actually, I think he tried, to his understanding, to characterize new school games in a non-hostile way. I've already suggested better ways of understanding what's happening there, in a way that doesn't involve insulting other playstyles. I'd suggest this approach may be more helpful and less likely to result in unnecessary flamewars.

"Understand first, then be understood."


It's really not binary. To use an example here - Shock: Social Science Fiction is a game that doesn't have "a GM" per se. It's not even a rotating GM set up, really. What it is is a set up where GMing duties are distributed around the table depending on the area of in game play. Player A might have GMing duties when it comes to diplomacy, Player B might have GMing duties in star ship battles, player C may have GMing duties for exploration, etc.

I think I'm not being understood here, and you're the second person to not grasp what I was trying to say, so let me attempt to clarify.

I'm not saying that there are only two play styles - I'm very familiar with GM-less games.

What I'm saying is that for any given area, the concept of authority *is* binary. What I mean by that is that there *is* an authority, someone that, if a consensus cannot be reached, gets to make the final judgement call.

In some cases, that is "the rules". The GM may be the final *interpreter* of the rules, but that's not to say that the GM has the power to override the rules.

In some cases, that's the GM. If the GM has authority, they have authority. This is binary.

In some cases, the authority may vary, depending on what is happening. In Fiasco, for instance, the player whose turn it is generally has "authority" over the details of the scene, but the chosen resolution of the scene has authority over whether the scene turns out well or not.

Is that any more clear?

Knaight
2013-08-24, 02:44 PM
In some cases, that's the GM. If the GM has authority, they have authority. This is binary.

Post clarification: I'd still disagree, but on a different point. Take a game with 1 GM and 3 players. GM authority might count as just 1 vote, and it might trump everything (effectively 4 votes). That still leaves the grey areas of 2 and 3 votes, where 2 lets the players as a whole veto something, or lets two players put something in deadlock if one offers no opinion, while one player can't do much, and 3 lets the players as a whole put something in deadlock. Presumably the flat veto is differentiated from deadlock through allowing direct player influence, rather than just putting up any other decision.

Amphetryon
2013-08-24, 07:28 PM
Post clarification: I'd still disagree, but on a different point. Take a game with 1 GM and 3 players. GM authority might count as just 1 vote, and it might trump everything (effectively 4 votes). That still leaves the grey areas of 2 and 3 votes, where 2 lets the players as a whole veto something, or lets two players put something in deadlock if one offers no opinion, while one player can't do much, and 3 lets the players as a whole put something in deadlock. Presumably the flat veto is differentiated from deadlock through allowing direct player influence, rather than just putting up any other decision.

Could you provide an example where putting "something in deadlock" in this fashion would be a positive in a game? I've played several different games, and nothing has ground them to a halt faster than the sort of impasse this brings to mind.

Alaris
2013-08-24, 08:59 PM
to put it succinctly, and not eloquently at all.

it is the DM's obligation to create a game that is fun and interesting for the players.

it is the DM's prerogative to design this game HOWEVER he sees fit, and be honest and up front about alterations he is making to the game. pray he does not alter it further

it is the player's choice to participate in the game or not, but once the player has sat down and rolled up a character, having been forwarned about the nature of the game. they have agreed to the premise of the game, and the foibles of the Dungeon Master.

be those foibles "no gnomes." "elves are a lithe, pointy haired people who excel at poverty" or "all spell DCs are 1d20 + stuff instead of a flat formula"

The DM's word is law. (at his table, in his game)
if the players are at the table, they abide by this law.

tl;dr
what the DM says, goes.
DM says stupid stuff, the players go too.

Congrats, you win the thread. Because this is how games should be.

+1!

Gamgee
2013-08-25, 03:16 AM
If I take something out of a game I will tell the players why and justify it. For example currently they are capped at level 5 and there will be no access to resurrection spells (Pathfinder). This is to facilitate a more down to earth campaign where they have to think outside of the box in how they approach problems. This is especially true of the casters, and I've seen them do really clever things with the spells they have.

There is no resurrection spells because the gods forbid it. The power levels of the players is likewise capped out at 5th because the gods prevent most ordinary men from attaining higher.

There are some people that are in the 6-10 range and this would be high tier humans, the best you will find typically in the world while still being common enough to see and fear. They are the humans who have pushed past and beyond typical mortal limitations. Most often the gods humor these people and allow them to become this strong.

5-15 is superhuman levels of skill and ability. There might be a few people at this level of power in the world, how they broke the gods control over them is anyone's guess. They are incredibly powerful and can turn the tide of battles and wars.

16-20 Are those who have found the secrets of the gods, just the faintest hints of what makes their godly powers tick. They are akin to Demi-Gods. People in this range will be unique in their situation.

tasw
2013-08-25, 12:46 PM
The notion that a Player needs to proactively ask if things listed in the PHb (or other game's equivalent) are available or not - rather than the GM making the guidelines clear up front - feels odd and a bit draconian to me, even as an old-school DM.

Just to nitpick, but isnt it a spell craft check, or knowledge arcana/religion to be able to know what the components of a spell are?

Assuming your starting low level the chances of said PC being able to make that roll and knowing thats what he needs are low. So odds are the player was cheating anyway.

Ravens_cry
2013-08-25, 01:12 PM
If you aren't high enough level to cast Resurrection, and you are collecting components for it, then you are using information that you know your character doesn't know.

If you are high enough level, then yes, of course you have a list of the spells you know. But you don't know about spells you don't know.
Not necessarily. I might not know how to mix chemicals to make nitroglycerine, but I know it can be done. I could even find a recipe, though I do not trust my own knowledge enough to make it even then. Assuming you had a chance to talk to other, more experienced spell-casters, or research in a library, you would quite likely know such spells exist and something of what is entailed in their use. Perhaps reflected by a skill check,but still completely doable.

Tyndmyr
2013-08-25, 02:22 PM
Recently I had a discussion with a friend about who had the final say over what players got to do in games:
My argument was that if the DM felt that players should not have the power to throw around wish, miracle, and resurrection spells like cheep candy, he had the right to restrict access to them and tell the spellcasters said spells were unavailable to them.
My friend argued that since these spells were part of the core rules, the players should be allowed to access them no matter what, and of the whole group wanted to play with said spells, it would pretty much override the DM's decision.

I am NOT asking anyone which one of us is right, as we both have our valid points, but what is your opinion as to who in the game gets to be the final authority as to what is and is not allowed in games?

Here's how this works. You can't actually force people to do things because of a title in a game. The "respect mah authoritah" approach does not really win people around who disagree with you.

Instead of looking for a claim of authority being backed by people on the internet(which, lets be honest, will not be convincing to them either), sit down, talk about what sort of game ya'll want to play, and come to an agreement on that. It might include those spells, it might not, it might be some entirely different option. Don't worry about who has the "authority" to force others to play as they want, instead, talk about WHY you want these things.

Knaight
2013-08-25, 03:46 PM
Instead of looking for a claim of authority being backed by people on the internet(which, lets be honest, will not be convincing to them either), sit down, talk about what sort of game ya'll want to play, and come to an agreement on that. It might include those spells, it might not, it might be some entirely different option. Don't worry about who has the "authority" to force others to play as they want, instead, talk about WHY you want these things.

Plus, this sets things up in initial negotiations - people pitch games, a pitch is chosen, and everyone was behind the pitch so things move slowly. As the GM is decided during that period, it also bypasses the matter of authority in the first place.

Amphetryon
2013-08-25, 05:08 PM
Just to nitpick, but isnt it a spell craft check, or knowledge arcana/religion to be able to know what the components of a spell are?

Assuming your starting low level the chances of said PC being able to make that roll and knowing thats what he needs are low. So odds are the player was cheating anyway.I do not understand how this is a nitpick of my comment. Please clarify what you are saying I misstated, which your nitpick is attempting to correct.

TuggyNE
2013-08-26, 03:05 AM
Just to nitpick, but isnt it a spell craft check, or knowledge arcana/religion to be able to know what the components of a spell are?

The skills do not list that usage, and no DC is readily to hand; apparently, it was assumed to be automatically known by anyone capable of (eventually?) casting the spell.

danatblair
2013-08-26, 05:27 PM
Besides, trying to tell players that they cannot stock up on spell components ahead of time is perhaps a bit silly.

The characters do understand how magic works in their world, on some level. Worst case scenario, if a player was forced to roll against a dm created dc, the player can get assisted by others and perhaps take some time researching in a library. What does planning ahead really get the player?

If the players are low level, they can't actually cast the spell yet. In this case, they still need to locate and acquire the services of a high level caster to actually use the diamond in this manner. Any numbers of costs or quests could be attached to the service in addition to the diamond. Any resurrection still occurs at the speed of GM fiat.

Also, d and d is a very loot based system. If a low level player is willing to set aside a precious part of their early income for a theoretical high level pay off, let them. They are actively making the game slightly more challenging for themselves by not using every penny them get in the pursuit of current mathematical bonuses. As long as they are not withholding so much treasure so that the party is hindered by one character's lack of loot, let them.

And really, if I lived in a world where health insurance was not really needed, but diamonds would let me live until I died of old age you can bet I would attempt to buy or quest for them. It's a logical motivation for a character in that world to seek means of self preservation. Really, between reincarnation and resurrection abilities it is possible to live quite a long time, provided someone wanted to. Seems like that would be the type of thing every commoner would speak of as legend, but regretfully realize that they would never have to money to be able to afford the spells needed for eternal life.

Tyndmyr
2013-08-27, 08:45 AM
The skills do not list that usage, and no DC is readily to hand; apparently, it was assumed to be automatically known by anyone capable of (eventually?) casting the spell.

Knowledge arcana is fairly reasonable, though...and it seems fairly clear that ability to cast a spell is not a reasonable prerequisite for knowledge about the spell.

Consider the fighter who adventures with a wizard who loves the hell out of fireball. Eventually, he's going to be able to ID a fireball. He's also likely capable of noticing that the wizard is pulling out bat poop whenever he's casting it. And that's a FIGHTER! Wizards definitely know of the existence of spells beyond those they can cast, and it would be quite reasonable to look up the requirements at ye olde wizard school before setting out on an adventure where one hopes to gain a spell.