PDA

View Full Version : DMing Style



antoniosmith198
2015-06-09, 04:42 PM
Just curious as to what your dming style is.

Are you a very picky and hands on controlling type with every aspect including character creation?

Do you allow your players to have complete control of their characters?

Do you just guide the players in a certain direction and let the game play out with different twists and turns?

Please explain why

Just curious to see people responses.

Keltest
2015-06-09, 04:48 PM
I allow players to *try* anything they want. Theres always some miniscule chance that a god we have in the pantheon specifically set aside for this will notice you, get a chuckle out of it, and let it happen.

As far as character creation goes, we have a list of setting-allowed class/race combos. Elves for example cannot be any divine class (including paladins) because culturally they became seriously disenfranchised with their gods. They still worship them out of respect (in the backstory they were actual elves who fought the evil gods and won), but they don't act as their agents.

Of course, if they want to do something different, they can just ask and ill work with them to integrate the character into the setting. Stone Giant bard FTW.

For the adventures, I set out a clear path that says "Here is what I have prepared to run for you guys" and if they go off those rails, I grumble a bit, head down to my computer, and print out a bunch of monster sheets for the new direction. And then I grumble at them.

Amphetryon
2015-06-09, 06:35 PM
I'm the "annoy Players by making competitive challenges, then annoy those same Players by making challenges too easy" variety of DM. Sometimes, for variety, I go in the opposite order.

Keltest
2015-06-09, 06:48 PM
I'm the "annoy Players by making competitive challenges, then annoy those same Players by making challenges too easy" variety of DM. Sometimes, for variety, I go in the opposite order.

Have you tried annoying your players by making challenges exactly the right level of challenging?

Amphetryon
2015-06-09, 06:57 PM
Have you tried annoying your players by making challenges exactly the right level of challenging?

What level would that be? Options: Did any Player Characters take damage? If yes, Brutal Killer DM trying for TPK. If no, Cakewalk Kid-Gloves DM who makes things so easy on the PCs it's boring.

Small amounts of hyperbole involved in describing the options.

Keltest
2015-06-09, 07:02 PM
What level would that be? Options: Did any Player Characters take damage? If yes, Brutal Killer DM trying for TPK. If no, Cakewalk Kid-Gloves DM who makes things so easy on the PCs it's boring.

Small amounts of hyperbole involved in describing the options.

Um... yes.

In all seriousness, a DM should be trying for a TPK. The trick is to make it possible, but not easy. If that pack of ogres isn't actually capable of killing the party, then theyre just a drain on the resources. Sometimes it may take (un)lucky rolls for it to happen. Heck, maybe even most of the time. But when youre playing the monsters, they should always be a threat unless the players take steps ahead of time to correct that.

Maglubiyet
2015-06-09, 07:03 PM
I have some guidance in character creation so as to prevent problems from cropping up later during play. No evilness or one-dimensional powerhouses allowed. I also try to encourage people not to duplicate roles that already exist in the party.


I allow players to *try* anything they want.

Absolutely. Getting them to try, especially for newer players, is sometimes the issue. For those people I might try to coax them, make suggestions in order to get them to act.

For those for whom it isn't a problem, the assertive and creative ones -- yeah, I let them go to town. It keeps me on my toes.

mephnick
2015-06-09, 07:26 PM
I'm strict and I'm flexible, I guess?

In D&D for example, I'm fairly strict in character creation. I restrict races, multiclass combos, alignments (if I use them) and other things that don't make thematic sense to me.

In game-play I let players try anything they want and will usually attempt to make it possible. My games are generally set in a sandbox of some sort and they're free to go anywhere, provided they work with me and give me a chance to run a successful session. The other side of that sword is that they can try whatever they want and this means sometimes they die if they make bad decisions.

Thrudd
2015-06-09, 07:43 PM
I have run the gamut over the years, from totally open sandbox with no plan at all to linear narrative railroad with pre gen characters, and back again.

Now I prefer a sandbox style with a well defined and detailed setting, at least a few appropriate adventure locations prepared, and lots of tables for the random generation that drives the simulation.

I define the classes and races that are available for the game.
Players choose from any class/race that is appropriate for the setting and that they qualify for after randomly generating their ability scores. They create the characters together, or at least while I am there, and as a group decide their party dynamics and character relationships.

In game they have absolute control of the character's actions. The dice rule all outcomes of actions.

I do not force them or expect them to do anything in particular, besides role play their character that must have goals and motives that drive them to be an adventurer, and be compatible with the other characters. I expect them to seek adventure, treasure, power, justice, etc, and my setting is set up to have plenty of places they can go to do that.

I tend to be animated as a DM, physically acting things out, making sound effects and doing voices and accents.

In combat, I try to create a sense of urgency and my activeness should help make a more visceral experience. I use an open table and measuring tape instead of a grid, so the battlefield looks a little more organic and chaotic. I don't allow pre-measuring before taking actions (you can look at the tape and look at the table and guesstimate, but no actual laying it down until you actually move/shoot).
I encourage actions to be declared fairly quickly. I don't use a turn timer unless I have to (people taking minutes to plan their action).

Elbeyon
2015-06-09, 07:54 PM
I pick a system.
Because we need a system unless we are going freeform, but that's more rules work than just picking a good system.

The players make their characters without any mechanical input from me.
Because they don't need any mechanical input from me.

I never get the dice out.
Because I never need to roll anything.

I make up some fluff and never have to set a DC.
Because that's an easy way to have a fun time. Woo~

Eisenheim
2015-06-09, 09:35 PM
I like collaborative storytelling, including the creation of the setting and game. I don't control character creation, but I like it to be part of a session zero, so that everyone builds their character together and the party makes sense.

Once play begins, I run plotted adventures, rather than a sandbox, but try to make those plots about the PCs, rather than railroad them through things they don't care about.

NRSASD
2015-06-09, 10:42 PM
I normally just try to plan one adventure ahead of play and let the PCs decide what their goals are, but recently I've been doing something bigger and it's been a lot of fun. What I did is draw up an outline of the general trajectory of the plot, and figure out what the NPCs would do in absence of the characters. Then, I have the NPCs improvise and try to catch up with the PCs once the shenanigans begin and the plot veers out of control.

For example, I'm currently running a medieval-era civil war, where one of the players is the heir to one of the warring factions but is in hiding to avoid assassins. Without PC interference, the king gets assassinated, the two sides form up and engage each other, the "good guys" attempt a surprise assault on their rival's capital which ends in disaster because the "bad guys" were ready for them, the good forces are forced to a humiliating surrender, and a new puppet king is set up by the victorious faction.

The nice thing about setting up a vague outline is you always know what the villain's goals are going to be. It also lets you get inside his head as you try to figure out how to counter the absurd chaos that PCs cause to his plans. Finally, it adds a sense of verisimilitude to the game as it feels less like a string of random events caused by a demigod with a grudge, and more like a game of chess between two opponents.

The only downside is that it can take quite a lot of work to set up, and that work may be worthless if the PCs decide to go another direction entirely.

Also, I make sure that every NPC is expendable and non-vital to the plot (or at least a workaround for their importance exists), because knowing PCs, they'll murder at least one completely innocent person a session on charges of being a shapeshifter.

In play, I'm only ok at improv so I try to map out everything ahead of time. It doesn't work, because PCs fixating on the wrong small details or careening off course are to be expected, but it at least gives me a solid foundation to work from as everything slowly (or rapidly) collapses.

Bard1cKnowledge
2015-06-09, 11:36 PM
OK the kind of DM where if I don't have easy access to something (iethe hell knights the barbarian wants to pick fights with) I will stop him right there and pack everything up. YOU don't railroad MY story. That's MY job

Karl Aegis
2015-06-10, 12:25 AM
OK the kind of DM where if I don't have easy access to something (iethe hell knights the barbarian wants to pick fights with) I will stop him right there and pack everything up. YOU don't railroad MY story. That's MY job

Your barbarian still uses the same system as everyone else, right? Sometimes you get barbarians who think that their foreignness allows them to use playing cards to "roll" in a d6 system just because the opposite side of the world in the setting uses playing cards to "roll".

prufock
2015-06-10, 10:45 AM
Campaign Creation and Background
I keep a scrapbook of my ideas, and usually have at least half a dozen games I could potentially run. When one game is drawing to a close, I'll ask my players what they'd like to do next, and give them a list of the games I have in my scrapbook. Generally they vote on it, or try to come to some consensus. If they didn't like any of these ideas (but I've always have enough that there is one on which they can agree), I would ask what sort of game they'd like to play, take all their ideas, and try to make some coherent campaign around it.

I'm pretty transparent and flexible, letting the players have input on most everything. I spend a bunch of free time working on settings, homebrew, houserules, etc. It's all out in the open for the players to see, critique, and use.

Character Creation
As a DM, I generally provide a list of sources, races, and classes that are allowed or disallowed. For D&D, it's normally it's "any official WotC product" but with limited races depending on the setting. I usually like to vet characters before we start to make sure there's nothing absurd, broken, or completely out of place in the setting; I've never had to ban a character concept. Again, we usually discuss character concepts and build advice during the process (which the players do on their own time) by Facebook chat, so it's a pretty transparent exercise.

I usually place some allegiance/motivation/alignment demands on them to rule out PvP and to make sure they have similar goals in keeping with the campaign idea, unless it's the type of campaign that encourages intra-party conflict (like Paranoia!).

Planning
I plan in stages. The first stage is the "concept" and overarching idea, such as "the princess has been kidnapped, get her back." Stage 2 is the "session" stage, where I try to determine what stage each session will involve. The final stage is the "scene" stage. I generally plan for 4-6 hours, average 5, and plan by "scenes" which I assume are 1 hour each (apart from a short introductory scene and wrap-up scene). For each scene I determine what sort of obstacles there are for the PCs to overcome, and how that contributes to the final goal in stage 1. This is where the nitty gritty details come into play, such as enemy statblocks and such.

Actual Play
While I plan a campaign's plot, the route PCs take is always open to change and therefore revision in the Planning section. I try not to railroad, but to provide clues, points of interest, motivations, and so on for the players. The players generally work with me to make things happen, but if they go off course I adapt and improvise. The characters can say and do anything (or at least try), but I try to build worlds which have consequences for failure.

Ultimately, I try to make the game fun for everyone. I do my best to give everyone something to do, and their own little sub-plots.

Aftermath
I ask for feedback from my players on what they liked, what they didn't, what they'd like to do next, what they'd like to see more or less, and any other comments they might have. This way, I tailor my games to fit everyone's desires as best as I can.

AxeAlex
2015-06-10, 10:57 AM
I like to try different story styles, and really the Gm's style is linked to the story he and the players are trying to tell.

I did a story where a French Knight, a Zulu Hunter, a German Physician, a Generic-Human Spacecolony-Engineer, an American Sheriff, and an Egyptian Vizier all woke up in the same island. Character were pre-defined, all had different goals and quests. Since they were all in the same room without knowing wtf was going on, it was a heavily rail-roaded mystery game. They had access to a time-machine, but they were in a very confined environment, the island.

I also GMed a game were the players were trying to take over the world... And that's it, complete sandbox. I didnt even choose the challenges to oppose them, as they were not reacting to some evil, and were given no quest, THEY initiated the action, THEY were the bad guys. So I only REACTED to them.

All-in-all, whatever your story is, what is important is to never say "no" to your player.
All the fun of the player comes from decisions. Or what the Angry DM calls "decision-points".

Why is a fight fun? Why is a political debate fun? Because the players have lots of options at any time.

Why is a chase-scene so lame to play out? Because the players simply say "Uhh, ok, I run after him" then roll a bunch of dices until everyone is bored enough and the DM decides if you finally catch him or not.

If you let their players make their own decisions and never refuse them, you will never railroad, whatever is the style of the game, even when you GIVE them characters and make them wake up togheter in prison!

Bard1cKnowledge
2015-06-10, 11:21 AM
Your barbarian still uses the same system as everyone else, right? Sometimes you get barbarians who think that their foreignness allows them to use playing cards to "roll" in a d6 system just because the opposite side of the world in the setting uses playing cards to "roll".

Um, this is in a pathfinder game, no cards at all

Jay R
2015-06-10, 06:56 PM
I have a pretty strict approach to character creation, with the possibility of DM-granted exceptions. The character creation handout for my current 2E game includes the following:

Note: I have a basic idea for PCs, but I urge people to ask for exceptions. Some exceptions I won’t grant because they don’t fit the world, others because they would make a character too powerful. But I am quite comfortable with the idea that every character is an exception to the basic idea.

You will begin as first level characters with very little knowledge of the outside world. Your character is just barely adult – 14 years old. You all know each other well, having grown up in the same tiny village. Everyone in this village grows their own food, and it’s rare to see anybody from outside the village, or anything not made in the village. There is a smith, a village priest, but very few other specialists.

You are friends, even if you choose to have very different outlooks, because almost everybody else in the village, and absolutely everyone else anywhere near your age, are dull villagers, with little imagination.

By contrast, you and your friends sometimes stare down the road, or into the forest, wondering what the world is like.

The world is basically early medieval. You all speak a single language for which you (reasonably) have no name. If you learn another language, you’ll know more about what that means.

It’s a really small village. There are fewer than 100 people living there, which is smaller than it used to be. There are chickens, goats, sheep, a couple of oxen, but no horses or cows.

The village has a single road going out of town to the north and south, and you’ve never been on it. The only travel on it occurs when a few wagons go off to take food to market – and even that hasn’t happened in the last few seasons. Very rarely, a traveler may come through, and spend the night with the priest. You have all greedily listened to any stories these travelers tell. Your parents say this isn’t good for you – what’s here in the village is good enough for you, and all travelers are always liars, anyway.

...

I will answer any reasonable questions about the village and its denizens. You do not know anything that cannot be learned in a backward, isolated village. (And yes, that’s why you’ve grown up semi-isolated.)

Telok
2015-06-10, 07:15 PM
Bounded sandbox with flexability and an unenforced plot. Theme and timeline are enforced. Npc actions are as realistic as I can get for the npc's experience, intellect, and resources. Fame and piety are tracked by the dm and have in-game, in-character, effects.

Essentially "Here are the limits, stuff will happen with or without you, you can change the course of the world or die in a ditch, if you have questions ask me. Now play."

MesiDoomstalker
2015-06-10, 08:30 PM
I'm a story heavy GM... primarily because I find the task of designing encounters boring (at least mechanically) and I'm also the strongest optimzer, so I'm constantly afraid I'll TPK when I don't want to. My players tend to be the hit things with sticks types versus doing any kind of meaningful strategy or anything. However, my story I set up in a very loose framework. I know how and what the NPCs are doing. I present the situation to my players, they decide their goal and how they go about it. Then I adjust NPCs accordingly (or not, depending on what they know of the PC's plans and actions). I also make a point of reminding or informing my players of In-Universe reasons their plans are bad (typically involves reminding them proposed actions are acts of Treason against the government, whom they are working for).

NRSASD
2015-06-10, 09:35 PM
All-in-all, whatever your story is, what is important is to never say "no" to your player.
All the fun of the player comes from decisions. Or what the Angry DM calls "decision-points".


I agree 10000%. This is the single most important factor to playing as a DM. Always let your players try to do something if they decide they want to. However, this does not mean you should let them succeed all the time.

For example, if the 10-ton ceiling is slowly descending on them and the gnome illusionist with a 7 str decides to hold the ceiling up with his bare hands, he's still going to fail even if he rolls a natural 20. If he decides to enlarge and strength boost the barbarian however, that stands a better chance of working.

Make your PCs work for their victories by always giving them the chance to try whatever insanity they think is most feasible, but don't feel bound to regard a natural 20 as an automatic success in any challenge.

If they want to do something really improbable, like hit a flying griffon with a javelin while falling off an angry dragon 1500 m up, let them take the shot with appropriately high penalties. Just never say "no".

Flickerdart
2015-06-10, 09:44 PM
In my experience players will always whine about how hard an encounter is up until the moment they tower over the corpses of their enemies. So I don't worry too much about that.

I treat my players the same way I like to be treated when I play - I trust them to be mature adults about the builds they bring to the table. So far I have never had to ask anybody to rebuild, though sometimes players choose to do so on their own volition in order to bring a character more in line with the rest of the party and the demands of the plot.

Likewise, I don't enforce any sort of rails. This leads to some interesting turns, like the PCs deciding to disguise themselves as evil cultists and befriend a necromancer rather than kicking in his door, or choosing to serve the sealed evil they awakened instead of trying to fight her. I am very good at improvising and usually don't plan session details (monsters, treasure, etc) more than one or two sessions in advance, so this sort of thing works very well for me.

sktarq
2015-06-10, 10:35 PM
In PC creation I work very tightly with players to help them create something that will have ties to the world, a reason to stick with the other PC's, goals, etc.

Then it is a matter of building a highly detailed world. Often with a PC agreement to keep adventuring within the region I've focused on building (though they direct what kinds of areas I build or build out so they get that choice during session zero)

I usually try to have slow building consequences of ignoring the plot-but enforce that only when any shenanigans are not entertaining the party or causing issues like the party dividing into two mini-parties. Also the "plot" is normally defined as a goal and I let them choose a path/method.

As for when to say no to my players: during character creation somewhat (and I'll happily work with them to get a character that is mutually acceptable) and to enforce agreement made around the game (if the game is stated no PvP then it's up to the DM to enforce that rule IMO). If talking to a player hasn't worked an something is causing a problem at the table then I will consider it a warning before booting the player.

goto124
2015-06-11, 07:24 AM
[snip]If they want to do something really improbable, like hit a flying griffon with a javelin while falling off an angry dragon 1500 m up, let them take the shot with appropriately high penalties. Just never say "no".

Does this not come off as a passive-aggressive way of saying 'no'? Wouldn't the players prefer you just say 'no'?

Earthwalker
2015-06-11, 07:51 AM
Onethly I massivily approve of this thread. I see the same names appearing on the forums and I have to admit I do want to know what they think thier GMing style is. Its nice putting a style to a name / and series of posts.

Also so far it has just been examples of ways to play with no one jumping up and down telling people what wrong fun they are having.

Twothly my own style has changed and evolved alot. It also shifts depending on what game system I am running. Every time I think back to some of my old GM tricks I shudder at the thought.

Currently I am running Fate and as you would imagine ithier is no rail roading or many roads. The PCs drive the action and I responce throwing in complications when I think it is funny. I am really loving how FATE works the making things up on the fly and just rolling with it seems to work perfectly for my lack of planning.

I have recently finished a Pathfinder game that did have a plot I knew before the game began but I am no still driving things by player choices its just my change of drive happens slower in pathfinder and its more what do you want to see / do next week deal then instantly reponding to situations.

This has mellowed alot from my days of having a strict plot I was going to follow. Then forcing the Players onto that path.

Oh one universal think when I am GMing. No PvP. I have no interest in it. I want to run a game all want to play in together and have no interest in people working against the team.

hifidelity2
2015-06-11, 07:55 AM
Player Creation

Where there are multiple books I usually tell the Players what books they can use (Core only, Core plus etc). If there is anything I don’t allow I advise up front (No Mind affecting spells) . I also tell them of the game style so they can plan characters to suit it (e.g. it’s a Machiavellian type game rather than a dungeon crawl) BUT if they want a barbarian in my Machiavellian setting them I have no issues with that

I do however reserve the right to Ban any PC I don’t like or make them make adjustments

AxeAlex
2015-06-11, 08:33 AM
Does this not come off as a passive-aggressive way of saying 'no'? Wouldn't the players prefer you just say 'no'?

Not at all.

By experience, my players LOVE those sorts of things.
They love trying something that has few chances of success.

The player is not stupid, he knows trying to hit that shot in the tower's window while falling from a zeppelin and surrounder by a swarm of bees is not easy to do. He doesn't WANT it to be easy, he wants to try it!

Furthermore, if you think something is simply impossible, you better have good arguments to back it up, because if the player has argument why it COULD be possible, even if highly improbable, he will be pissed if you don't allow him to at least try it.

Finally, if you really try something is just impossible, you SHOULD offer something to your player that would make it plausible. "The falling tower is just too heavy, you know it will kill you if you try to hold it... But maybe if you had something to raise your strenght to higher than humanly possible, a potion or a spell, then MAYBE you could do it"

goto124
2015-06-11, 08:48 AM
because if the player has argument why it COULD be possible, even if highly improbable

I suppose it is a good idea to ask the player to give said reason.

Amphetryon
2015-06-11, 08:50 AM
Does this not come off as a passive-aggressive way of saying 'no'? Wouldn't the players prefer you just say 'no'?

From personal experience? In order: Yes, Players find this comes off as a passive-aggressive way of just saying 'no' to them, and grouse about it; no, they would not prefer if the DM just said 'no.'

AxeAlex
2015-06-11, 09:06 AM
I suppose it is a good idea to ask the player to give said reason.

Of course! If you think something is plain impossible, you can ask something like:
"How would you do that?" if you are unfamiliar with the player, or declare:
"Dude that's impossible, crazy and stupid." if it is a close friend.

This should prompt an explanation.

If the player can't give you a reason why it's possible or probable, he probably won't be frustrated you refused and will have to accept his silly idea (All the player's ideas are silly :D) is just too much.

If he can give you an explanation, but you still think it's impossible, try to come up with WHY you think it's impossible, and tell what his character is lacking to make it possible. (In a fantasy world, this can be plain and simple magic)

Example:
-I'll eat it.
-You wanna eat the iron chest? That's just insane, dude.
-Nah, see I have adamantium teeth. And the jaw, is like, the strongest muscle.
-Okay... Not sure about that jaw fact, but yeah ok, I guess you could eat the chest, but don't you agree it would take awhile and you'd probably end up dead?
-Nah, Im a dwarf, dwarves are tough, I have 22 Constitution, I can survive things no human ever could, like eating that much iron.
-Alright *Sign* Look, i'll allow a strenght roll to eat through the iron chest, even with a success it'll take 2 hours. Then, later, you will have a DIFFICULT roll related to your constitution which could make you severely ill, dead, or maybe -IF YOU ARE LUCKY- You will have severe tummy-ache which will still need some magic to heal your innards anyway. That's fine with you?
-So have I eaten the damn chest already? It's step 1 of a 9-step plan that can't fail.

Keltest
2015-06-11, 09:43 AM
I suppose it is a good idea to ask the player to give said reason.

I regard it as a challenge to myself to describe in as great detail as possible just how spectacularly my party's ill-conceived plans fail. If nothing else, it makes failure fun.

SimonMoon6
2015-06-11, 10:32 AM
Here are the things that I try to incorporate into my "style":

(1) Always be fair. That doesn't mean always being "nice". That's different. But if someone has a clever idea and it ought to work, even if means killing the meant-to-be-a-recurring-villain guy in two seconds the first time he appears, then fine, it works; no hard feelings. There are always more bad guys.

(2) Give everyone their time to shine. Let the characters do what they were built to do. Don't frustrate the rogue by saying "Okay, from now on, you'll only fight enemies immune to sneak attack." Don't frustrate the wizard by saying "Every adventure takes place in an anti-magic field now." That doesn't mean that there can't occasionally be situations where a particular character is frustrated, but it shouldn't happen all the time.

Also, if a character has some particularly interesting quality, let them use it. If they speak some obscure language, have an adventure where that *matters*. If they have the ability to rebuke hippos, make an adventure where that matters. If a character has an interesting backstory, *use* it.

(3) No railroads. Sandboxes if possible. The rules for 3.x D&D make it hard to make sandbox adventures, but it's still possible. The best campaigns I've ever run have leaned towards the sandbox direction.

As a corollary: wherever possible, avoid "dungeons". I know, I know, that's half of the name of the game. But they tend to limit things into a very linear (or effectively linear) way which is great for a newb DM but not for me.

Sacrieur
2015-06-11, 10:47 AM
Full sandbox. Zero hand-holding. Real risk of death.

Amphetryon
2015-06-11, 11:28 AM
I regard it as a challenge to myself to describe in as great detail as possible just how spectacularly my party's ill-conceived plans fail. If nothing else, it makes failure fun.

I'll just note that this particular version of 'fun' doesn't fit within the definition of that term used by many Players I've known.

Keltest
2015-06-11, 11:33 AM
I'll just note that this particular version of 'fun' doesn't fit within the definition of that term used by many Players I've known.

If im going to allow my players to try anything, that means running with the obviously bad ideas. Its better than telling them "Nope, you did a dumb, deal with it."

AxeAlex
2015-06-11, 11:52 AM
If im going to allow my players to try anything, that means running with the obviously bad ideas. Its better than telling them "Nope, you did a dumb, deal with it."

This. Sometimes you have to roll with the obviously stupid plans...

Once, the party was convinced a endless pit in the dungeon was a portal or a way out... Like... CONVINCED. Hints were given that is was not the case, I used the ultimate DON'T DO THIS plea and asked them "Are you sure?". But they jumped!

I actually finished the session, letting them think the pit led to another world... Then I explained it was hallucinations from starvation, and that they were actually endlessly falling....

Necroticplague
2015-06-11, 12:14 PM
Permissive, but tough. I prefer to sandbox things (though it's really hard, so i frequently fail on this front), I allow essentially any 1st or 2nd party (and some homebrew). World is a very metropolitan, highly fantastic place to account for all of this. I allow any plausible course of actions, including ones that could easily circumvent a challenge. However, I also allow you to make idiotic decisions. Your success in your hands, not mine.

Amphetryon
2015-06-11, 12:30 PM
If im going to allow my players to try anything, that means running with the obviously bad ideas. Its better than telling them "Nope, you did a dumb, deal with it."

Or, it's an alternate way of telling them "No, you did a dumb, deal with it" which, apparently, your Players will not take umbrage with because of the perception that they're being told this in a kinder, gentler way.

Freelance GM
2015-06-11, 09:55 PM
Just curious as to what your dming style is.

Are you a very picky and hands on controlling type with every aspect including character creation?


I ask the players what they want to play, and guide them towards the most optimized way to emulate that concept. After all, your cool and flavorful idea is a lot more fun to play if the character works.

I encourage people to try different characters, and work with them to make their ideas playable, but I don't like deviating too far from the core rules. For example, one player keeps asking for a pet phoenix. That's not happening.



Do you allow your players to have complete control of their characters?


Yes, but not completely. As a DM, one of my jobs is being the storyteller. So, the players describe what they want to do, and I describe what actually happens. 90% of the time, what I describe lines up with what they wanted. The other 10% of the time, the player's idea breaks the rules of the game in some way, and I have to create a narrative excuse for it not happening.

For example, D&D 5E just doesn't have called shots. They conflict with my interpretation of what "hit points" are, and if called shots are a thing, the archers will just call headshots every time, and go for the instant kill.
So, in my games, called shots chronically get caught in armor, simply graze the target, or otherwise have no effects other than the damage caused by a normal attack roll.



Do you just guide the players in a certain direction and let the game play out with different twists and turns?


I relish plot twists as much as my players do, so I'm just as thrilled when they do something unexpected as they are when I surprise them. There is a direction I want the game to go, but I am not afraid to let my player's actions find a new route.

I've recently been trying to loosen up even more with my storytelling. I'm slowly transitioning from a very Mass Effect-ish storytelling style (railroads with branching paths) to more open-ended campaigns.

Keltest
2015-06-12, 10:25 AM
Or, it's an alternate way of telling them "No, you did a dumb, deal with it" which, apparently, your Players will not take umbrage with because of the perception that they're being told this in a kinder, gentler way.

Well, yeah, that's the idea. D&D is after all a game. Im not sure where the confusion here lies, actually. Im trying to make defeat as enjoyable (or nearly so) as victory. That means going out of my way to avoid making them unhappy about it.

Amphetryon
2015-06-12, 10:53 AM
Well, yeah, that's the idea. D&D is after all a game. Im not sure where the confusion here lies, actually. Im trying to make defeat as enjoyable (or nearly so) as victory. That means going out of my way to avoid making them unhappy about it.

I'm not confused. I'm indicating that, in my experience, what you're describing as an effort to avoid making them unhappy about it will, instead, make some Players more unhappy about it, because they perceive it as a combination of sugarcoating the garbage-flavored sandwich (rather than being up-front about things) and rubbing their noses in it (by going into "as great detail as possible just how spectacularly my party's ill-conceived plans fail"). If it works for you, great; your experience is not mine. It's a recipe for annoying Players, in my experience.

Sacrieur
2015-06-12, 11:01 AM
Even I ask my players, "Are you sure you want to do that?" when they come up with a stupid plan.

Keltest
2015-06-12, 11:30 AM
I'm not confused. I'm indicating that, in my experience, what you're describing as an effort to avoid making them unhappy about it will, instead, make some Players more unhappy about it, because they perceive it as a combination of sugarcoating the garbage-flavored sandwich (rather than being up-front about things) and rubbing their noses in it (by going into "as great detail as possible just how spectacularly my party's ill-conceived plans fail"). If it works for you, great; your experience is not mine. It's a recipe for annoying Players, in my experience.

Theres no sugarcoating. They still die, often horribly. They can just laugh about it.

AxeAlex
2015-06-12, 12:05 PM
I'm not confused. I'm indicating that, in my experience, what you're describing as an effort to avoid making them unhappy about it will, instead, make some Players more unhappy about it, because they perceive it as a combination of sugarcoating the garbage-flavored sandwich (rather than being up-front about things) and rubbing their noses in it (by going into "as great detail as possible just how spectacularly my party's ill-conceived plans fail"). If it works for you, great; your experience is not mine. It's a recipe for annoying Players, in my experience.

I think you don't get what Keltest means. If you simply refuse a plan because it won't work (Nah, don't do this, you will die), you are robbing them of their agency. Sometimes, they make bad choices, sometimes, these choices will kill them.

When that happens, you have some options, like:

-Create a Deus Ex Machina to save them, which, if done too much, will let your players know they can't really die, will lessen suspense and tension, and will make them take more and more risks, and put themselves in more and more deadly situations. (That does not mean it's a bad thing if you guys like it that way)

-Tell them they are dead.

-Try to play out their death scene, it's the end of the story afterall, there is nothing wrong if you try to make it as memorable (Epic/Funny/Gruesome/Dramatic) as possible.

Keltest isn't saying he taunts his players and insult them... They are his friends afterall!

Amphetryon
2015-06-12, 12:39 PM
I think you don't get what Keltest means. If you simply refuse a plan because it won't work (Nah, don't do this, you will die), you are robbing them of their agency. Sometimes, they make bad choices, sometimes, these choices will kill them.

When that happens, you have some options, like:

-Create a Deus Ex Machina to save them, which, if done too much, will let your players know they can't really die, will lessen suspense and tension, and will make them take more and more risks, and put themselves in more and more deadly situations. (That does not mean it's a bad thing if you guys like it that way)

-Tell them they are dead.

-Try to play out their death scene, it's the end of the story afterall, there is nothing wrong if you try to make it as memorable (Epic/Funny/Gruesome/Dramatic) as possible.

Keltest isn't saying he taunts his players and insult them... They are his friends afterall!

"As great detail as possible just how spectacularly my party's ill-conceived plans fail" is a direct quote of the approach he uses. My position was, and continues to be, that a DM who goes into that level of detail to make the failure of a plan 'spectacular' will make some Players feel taunted and insulted, regardless of whether that's the DM's intent or not. This position is consistent with my experiences on both sides of the DM's screen. I fully recognize, and have now acknowledged repeatedly, that others may have different experiences.

AxeAlex
2015-06-12, 12:45 PM
"As great detail as possible just how spectacularly my party's ill-conceived plans fail" is a direct quote of the approach he uses. My position was, and continues to be, that a DM who goes into that level of detail to make the failure of a plan 'spectacular' will make some Players feel taunted and insulted, regardless of whether that's the DM's intent or not. This position is consistent with my experiences on both sides of the DM's screen. I fully recognize, and have now acknowledged repeatedly, that others may have different experiences.

Yeah the way he described it initially sounded wrong, but then he added: "That means going out of my way to avoid making them unhappy about it."

What I understood from this is that he just wanted them to have fun in defeat. And that is entirely possible without hurting the player's feelings.

Keltest
2015-06-12, 12:52 PM
Yeah the way he described it initially sounded wrong, but then he added: "That means going out of my way to avoid making them unhappy about it."

What I understood from this is that he just wanted them to have fun in defeat. And that is entirely possible without hurting the player's feelings.

Indeed. Im not tactless about it.

MrStabby
2015-06-12, 02:55 PM
Still finding my feet DMing but enjoying it so far.

On the scale of sandbox to railroad I am probably 80% towards sandbox. I have an overarching plot to the world and by the worlds nature powerful NPCs will have an effect on the PCs whatever they do.

If I have a set of factions and background set out for a port city at the start of a campaign and my players think "screw it, boats are cool - lets go overseas" then they can go but there is a serious risk that across the pond things may not be too different to where they started and similar things with different names may unfold there.

Otherwise I am about variety. I like fights that occasionally play to characters strengths - an occasional cluster of badguys round a campfire to be a prime fireball target for example but also some really tough running battles that need careful resource management against veterans using all their knowledge and tactics to fight effectively. Overall I am pretty tough.

I think the big thing I try and do is have enemies react, within combat and within adventure paths. If PCs crash down a door into a room to fight whatever is in there a round or two later the guys from across the hall will come in behind them. If they rob a temple then a bunch of paladins may come searching for them.

I do like dungeons - for a broad description of them. As a bit of an aside to a main quest they allow you to build an area in detail as they wont change much for most likely player actions. This can save one preparation as you can do a bunch earlier. Where the players want a more hack and slash session they might find their way into one.

xroads
2015-06-12, 03:06 PM
I prefer to run a cinematic and rules lite style of gaming. I don't have much time now days to read rules and/or create elaborate and intricate campaigns. And as long as everyone is having fun,why worry about the small stuff?

Sacrieur
2015-06-13, 08:51 AM
Still finding my feet DMing but enjoying it so far.

On the scale of sandbox to railroad I am probably 80% towards sandbox. I have an overarching plot to the world and by the worlds nature powerful NPCs will have an effect on the PCs whatever they do.

If I have a set of factions and background set out for a port city at the start of a campaign and my players think "screw it, boats are cool - lets go overseas" then they can go but there is a serious risk that across the pond things may not be too different to where they started and similar things with different names may unfold there.

Otherwise I am about variety. I like fights that occasionally play to characters strengths - an occasional cluster of badguys round a campfire to be a prime fireball target for example but also some really tough running battles that need careful resource management against veterans using all their knowledge and tactics to fight effectively. Overall I am pretty tough.

I think the big thing I try and do is have enemies react, within combat and within adventure paths. If PCs crash down a door into a room to fight whatever is in there a round or two later the guys from across the hall will come in behind them. If they rob a temple then a bunch of paladins may come searching for them.

I do like dungeons - for a broad description of them. As a bit of an aside to a main quest they allow you to build an area in detail as they wont change much for most likely player actions. This can save one preparation as you can do a bunch earlier. Where the players want a more hack and slash session they might find their way into one.

What you described is 100% sandbox. The players just aren't the only ones playing in it.

Maglubiyet
2015-06-13, 10:08 AM
I like games with solid rules on encumbrance and fatigue. We spend entire sessions keeping records on exactly how much gear the party is carrying and how it's packed. If it's questionable, I'll have them roleplay it.

Combat we just handwave away. We assume that if you're carrying the proper equipment that it's a non-issue. Slaying the dragon is the easy part. Invoicing all of the coins, gems, and magical artifacts and packing them in the most efficient and balanced manner is where the real gaming comes into play.

Jay R
2015-06-14, 07:52 AM
It often turns out to be a railroad trip from sandbox to sandbox. I pretty much determine what the first encounter will be, and how they handle it determines what the next one will be, and how they will encounter it.

Elbeyon
2015-06-14, 09:06 AM
I like games with solid rules on encumbrance and fatigue. We spend entire sessions keeping records on exactly how much gear the party is carrying and how it's packed. If it's questionable, I'll have them roleplay it.

Combat we just handwave away. We assume that if you're carrying the proper equipment that it's a non-issue. Slaying the dragon is the easy part. Invoicing all of the coins, gems, and magical artifacts and packing them in the most efficient and balanced manner is where the real gaming comes into play.I like the way you play! Do you want to collate spreadsheets?

SimonMoon6
2015-06-14, 11:03 AM
I like games with solid rules on encumbrance and fatigue. We spend entire sessions keeping records on exactly how much gear the party is carrying and how it's packed. If it's questionable, I'll have them roleplay it.

Combat we just handwave away. We assume that if you're carrying the proper equipment that it's a non-issue. Slaying the dragon is the easy part. Invoicing all of the coins, gems, and magical artifacts and packing them in the most efficient and balanced manner is where the real gaming comes into play.

The only thing that bugs me about that would be: how do you know if equipment gets used up in the combat? If I make sure to carry exactly 28 crossbow bolts before the fight, will I still have 28 crossbow bolts after the fight? This is IMPORTANT.

Elbeyon
2015-06-14, 11:27 AM
The only thing that bugs me about that would be: how do you know if equipment gets used up in the combat? If I make sure to carry exactly 28 crossbow bolts before the fight, will I still have 28 crossbow bolts after the fight? This is IMPORTANT.In dnd 3.5 bolts have a 50% recover rate if they miss. And can never be recovered if they hit. :smallbiggrin:

Keltest
2015-06-14, 11:55 AM
In dnd 3.5 bolts have a 50% recover rate if they miss. And can never be recovered if they hit. :smallbiggrin:

But if you handwave combat, how do you know whether your crossbow bolts missed or self destructed in the enemy!?

Maglubiyet
2015-06-14, 12:11 PM
The only thing that bugs me about that would be: how do you know if equipment gets used up in the combat? If I make sure to carry exactly 28 crossbow bolts before the fight, will I still have 28 crossbow bolts after the fight? This is IMPORTANT.


In dnd 3.5 bolts have a 50% recover rate if they miss. And can never be recovered if they hit. :smallbiggrin:


But if you handwave combat, how do you know whether your crossbow bolts missed or self destructed in the enemy!?

Ha, it's a trick question! No sane player would risk expending valuable resources like a crossbow bolt. PC's are assumed to conserve their expendable items, like potions, arrows, scrolls, etc.

Man, can you imagine?

MrStabby
2015-06-15, 09:11 AM
What you described is 100% sandbox. The players just aren't the only ones playing in it.

Ah, I can live with that. They seem to enjoy it anyway. I am still finding quite the right style and balance for the party though. It may take a couple more sessions.

The Evil DM
2015-06-15, 09:19 AM
I like games with solid rules on encumbrance and fatigue. We spend entire sessions keeping records on exactly how much gear the party is carrying and how it's packed. If it's questionable, I'll have them roleplay it.

Combat we just handwave away. We assume that if you're carrying the proper equipment that it's a non-issue. Slaying the dragon is the easy part. Invoicing all of the coins, gems, and magical artifacts and packing them in the most efficient and balanced manner is where the real gaming comes into play.

Funny thing about this.

I once had a game scenario following the trope of protect the caravan. A player showed up on game day with four sheets of graph paper taped together on which he had plotted the marching order for the 10 wagon and 30 pack animal caravan, where the guards would be insert amongst the merchants, which wagons held the valuables mixed in with the more mundane goods and patterns that mounted scouts would use to circle the slow moving caravan as it advanced.

In addition he had a schedule for moving the herd which included time feed and rest the animals morning, mid-day and evening, very reasonable estimates of movement rate and hours per day.

It was very obsessive.

I let his work be useful. Then I saved it into a section of my content as an article about how caravans move.

That said, I do use encumbrance, but I provide a piece of inventory software I wrote for my players that does all the work. They just select what they have and it outputs encumbrance and movement rates.

Elbeyon
2015-06-15, 09:22 AM
That sounds awesome. :smallbiggrin:

Thrathgnar
2015-06-15, 10:06 AM
I focus on the story more than the mechanics. I work with my players and they work with me to create epic plotlines. I usually give them a lot of freedom as long as their choices fit within the campaign setting, and I make fights cinematic and harrowing but not lethal

The Evil DM
2015-06-18, 04:24 PM
I am giving a late response to this thread but I wanted to think about it in depth before putting something down.

I speak about my campaigns a lot on this forum. Using terms common in this thread I run my campaigns as a sandbox but that is not my focus. My main objective as a GM is consistency in all things so that once the game is recognized as consistent players can make reliable inferences from data given.

That said, I believe the following. A role playing game is three objects, Narrative, Setting and Character, all linked by System. The system, whether it is complex or simple provides a basis for evaluating Character to Character interactions (for this monsters are just another form of character) Character to Setting interactions, and Character to Narrative interactions. (narrative provides the dynamic flow for the setting and characters) That system basis is present to help a GM arbitrate the game

a lot of GM problems are traceable to poor decision processes by GMs. Whether through lack of experience or capability a GM who is incapable of consistently engaging in a decision process to consistently resolve events in the campaign.

What I strive for is a Dynamic Narrative, coupled with a Dynamic Setting and Dynamic Characters. By dynamic I mean they are very interactive. To that end I have developed a number of personal tools for managing this.

I manage most of my setting through simulation systems. Most of the "Rules" that govern the setting are not known to the players. The players don't necessarily need to know how I determine local weather, or how I determine the amount of population growth in a season. The players need to know the outcome and changes as the timeline the campaign advances. I manage NPCs through a decision engine I have built where I record interactions and model the amount of friendship, or animosity, the PCs generate with individuals, groups and possibly even entire kingdoms.

These help me to make very consistent arbitration of game events.

Do note I say consistent, not fair. There are some areas within the campaign universe that are clearly not fair from a PC survival perspective. But those areas are known, consistently defined and the players know the risks they take if they venture into the dark places of the universe.

ShaneMRoth
2015-06-18, 05:05 PM
Does this not come off as a passive-aggressive way of saying 'no'? Wouldn't the players prefer you just say 'no'?

I strongly concur with this sentiment.

My DM style includes protecting the viability of the campaign setting by managing the expectations of the players and sustaining willing suspension of disbelief.

Occasionally, this means saying: No.

From time to time, this means saying: Hell, no.

Setting high DC scores for actions that strike the DM as inherently problematic is not a terribly effective way of managing a player's expectations.

Consider this scene from Dumb and Dumber...



Lloyd Christmas: ... What are my chances?

Mary Swanson: Not good.

Lloyd Christmas: You mean, not good like one out of a hundred?

Mary Swanson: I'd say more like one out of a million.

[pause]

Lloyd Christmas: So you're telling me there's a chance... YEAH!


If I set a high DC score for something, even if I set it to Epic Levels, I am saying that this is something is not just possible but is repeatable.

A player who is set on making an idea work is just as likely to endeavor to optimize which ever game mechanic that will put the idea into play as he is to drop the idea.

"No" is not a four letter word in my campaigns.

Keltest
2015-06-18, 05:36 PM
I strongly concur with this sentiment.

My DM style includes protecting the viability of the campaign setting by managing the expectations of the players and sustaining willing suspension of disbelief.

Occasionally, this means saying: No.

From time to time, this means saying: Hell, no.

Setting high DC scores for actions that strike the DM as inherently problematic is not a terribly effective way of managing a player's expectations.

Consider this scene from Dumb and Dumber...





If I set a high DC score for something, even if I set it to Epic Levels, I am saying that this is something is not just possible but is repeatable.

A player who is set on making an idea work is just as likely to endeavor to optimize which ever game mechanic that will put the idea into play as he is to drop the idea.

"No" is not a four letter word in my campaigns.

Your assumption here seems to be that your players will think "because there is a DC, it is meant to be reachable." instead of "Oh, I don't have the capability to do that."

ShaneMRoth
2015-06-18, 05:41 PM
Your assumption here seems to be that your players will think "because there is a DC, it is meant to be reachable." instead of "Oh, I don't have the capability to do that."

You are correct. That is my assumption. Some players will draw that conclusion.

Keltest
2015-06-18, 05:46 PM
You are correct. That is my assumption. Some players will draw that conclusion.

Any player that draws that conclusion is not likely to be deterred from their antics by being told "no". They might not roll the dice, but that wont stop them from pushing the limits of the game physics and your patience at every opportunity. They read "no" as "Find a different way to try it."

ShaneMRoth
2015-06-18, 06:44 PM
Example:
-I'll eat it.
-You wanna eat the iron chest? That's just insane, dude.
-Nah, see I have adamantium teeth. And the jaw, is like, the strongest muscle.
-Okay... Not sure about that jaw fact, but yeah ok, I guess you could eat the chest, but don't you agree it would take awhile and you'd probably end up dead?
-Nah, Im a dwarf, dwarves are tough, I have 22 Constitution, I can survive things no human ever could, like eating that much iron.
-Alright *Sign* Look, i'll allow a strenght roll to eat through the iron chest, even with a success it'll take 2 hours. Then, later, you will have a DIFFICULT roll related to your constitution which could make you severely ill, dead, or maybe -IF YOU ARE LUCKY- You will have severe tummy-ache which will still need some magic to heal your innards anyway. That's fine with you?
-So have I eaten the damn chest already? It's step 1 of a 9-step plan that can't fail.

This example is illustrative of a problem I've experienced at the table.

The game doesn't work if the Player strategically withholds information from the DM.

I'm assuming this example is theoretical, but I've seen players attempt to give me the equivalent of "the 1st step of a 9-point plan" from time to time. And they invariably felt the need to withhold the other eight points, and invariably refused to not divulge what the goal of the plan was...

I was just supposed to commit to a series of rulings, on their own merits and completely out of context, and then... once I had committed to the rulings... the player would attempt to confront me with how those rulings support this "plan"...

A DM can be an Unreliable Narrator to the players, but the players can't be Unreliable Narrators to the DM.

If a player wants a good ruling from a DM, then the player needs to feed good timely information to the DM.

Keltest
2015-06-18, 06:49 PM
This example is illustrative of a problem I've experienced at the table.

The game doesn't work if the Player strategically withholds information from the DM.

I'm assuming this example is theoretical, but I've seen players attempt to give me the equivalent of "the 1st step of a 9-point plan" from time to time. And they invariably felt the need to withhold the other eight points, and invariably refused to not divulge what the goal of the plan was...

I was just supposed to commit to a series of rulings, on their own merits and completely out of context, and then... once I had committed to the rulings... the player would attempt to confront me with how those rulings support this "plan"...

A DM can be an Unreliable Narrator to the players, but the players can't be Unreliable Narrators to the DM.

If a player wants a good ruling from a DM, then the player needs to feed good timely information to the DM.

In what way is it a problem? Unless knowing the end goal is necessary for you to figure out how the player goes about the earlier steps (in which case some probing would likely get that information anyway) you don't need to know any of the steps outside of the one currently being attempted.

And lets say they do tell you the plan. What are you going to do about it? Either you find a problem step and veto it, or... you eventually run into the problem step and it gets vetoed anyway. Or you don't find a reason to veto it and it works irrespective of whether or not you knew the plan in advance.

Its not a problem unless you choose to make it into one.

ShaneMRoth
2015-06-18, 07:03 PM
...
And lets say they do tell you the plan. What are you going to do about it? ...

I'm going to make a ruling with the full benefit of context.

Sticking with the example (step one of the dwarf's cunning plan: Eat a chest.) Perhaps the plan could be viable if the dwarf use a spell like polymorph or shapechange to assume the form of a creature with the Swallow Whole extraordinary ability. Maybe the plan can work that way, maybe it can't. But if the DM doesn't know what the plan is, the DM can't make any in context ruling. And in my experience, any player hatched plan that starts with a wackadoo first step like "eat a chest" doesn't get any better by step 9.

Keltest
2015-06-18, 07:07 PM
I'm going to make a ruling with the full benefit of context.

Sticking with the example (step one of the dwarf's cunning plan: Eat a chest.) Perhaps the plan could be viable if the dwarf use a spell like polymorph or shapechange to assume the form of a creature with the Swallow Whole extraordinary ability. Maybe the plan can work that way, maybe it can't. But if the DM doesn't know what the plan is, the DM can't make any in context ruling. And in my experience, any player hatched plan that starts with a wackadoo first step like "eat a chest" doesn't get any better by step 9.

How does context change the ruling at all? Either he can eat the chest, with or without magical assistance, or he cant. At best it would let you suggest alternatives, but that isn't really part of your job as DM and so cant be problematic if you don't do it.

Seriously, what is stopping you from saying "No, but you could be polymorphed into something that can" without knowing the plan?

nedz
2015-06-18, 07:59 PM
My style:
As close to full on sandbox as I can — I do have to roll back from this sometimes
No DeM
No DMPCs
Minimal meta-gaming — I'm quite simulationist

I do try to make every session different with creative encounters

I also try to create suspense, or paranoia, or other emotions, ..., even comedy sometimes

Jay R
2015-06-18, 08:37 PM
In what way is it a problem? Unless knowing the end goal is necessary for you to figure out how the player goes about the earlier steps (in which case some probing would likely get that information anyway) you don't need to know any of the steps outside of the one currently being attempted.

And lets say they do tell you the plan. What are you going to do about it? Either you find a problem step and veto it, or... you eventually run into the problem step and it gets vetoed anyway. Or you don't find a reason to veto it and it works irrespective of whether or not you knew the plan in advance.

Its not a problem unless you choose to make it into one.

Because in almost every case, they are trying to get me to make a ruling out of ignorance that I would not make if I knew the actual situation.

Turn the question around. Why is a player deliberately withholding relevant information from the DM, for any reason other than a con game?

Flickerdart
2015-06-18, 09:31 PM
Ooh, yeah, that's productive - assume that all players are crooks just waiting to slip something past His Excellence the DM.

Do none of you people actually play with your friends? People you trust and respect? No?

Jay R
2015-06-18, 09:53 PM
Ooh, yeah, that's productive - assume that all players are crooks just waiting to slip something past His Excellence the DM.

Do none of you people actually play with your friends? People you trust and respect? No?

Insult received.

Yes, I play with my friends, people I trust and respect. And they don't try to withhold information from me when I'm making a ruling. That's the point - trust goes two ways.

Flickerdart
2015-06-18, 10:37 PM
Yes, I play with my friends, people I trust and respect. And they don't try to withhold information from me when I'm making a ruling. That's the point - trust goes two ways.
Except that as soon as they withhold something from you, you consider them conmen? That's not trust.

Eisenheim
2015-06-18, 10:47 PM
I agree with the point that trickling out questions rather than just leveling with the GM about what you want to do from the outset is bad behavior, which I would never expect from the friends I play with, and would demand they cut out at once.

ShaneMRoth
2015-06-18, 11:08 PM
Do none of you people actually play with your friends? People you trust and respect? No?


Insult received.

Yes, I play with my friends, people I trust and respect. And they don't try to withhold information from me when I'm making a ruling. That's the point - trust goes two ways.


Except that as soon as they withhold something from you, you consider them conmen? That's not trust.

On the matter of trust...

Players will, from time to time, Work the Ref... and will throw spaghetti against the wall to see what will stick... and get so wrapped up defending their character concept that they get tunnel vision.

None of this done with malice.

If a player really wants a desired ruling, and believes that the best way to get that ruling is to act like an Unreliable Narrator to the DM, their desire to get the ruling may get the better of them.

But my point is that a DM will make better rulings if the DM has full context of what the player is trying to achieve before the ruling. If a player has a nine-point plan, and he wants it to succeed, then that player needs to show the DM the entire plan in advance.

Flickerdart
2015-06-18, 11:11 PM
Players will, from time to time, Work the Ref... and will throw spaghetti against the wall to see what will stick... and get so wrapped up defending their character concept that they get tunnel vision.
If there's anything we've learned from this thread, it's that DMs get wrapped up something, too.

AxeAlex
2015-06-19, 09:38 AM
On the matter of trust...
But my point is that a DM will make better rulings if the DM has full context of what the player is trying to achieve before the ruling. If a player has a nine-point plan, and he wants it to succeed, then that player needs to show the DM the entire plan in advance.

Yes and no.
I fully support that a player should reveal his 9-step-plan if the GM asks so. But I would never ask for the player to do so in the first place.

The GM is allowed to be surprised too. Hell, sometimes it's way funnier to see the wacky plan unfold step-by-step.

Sometimes the stupid plan is doomed to fail, sometimes it's actually quite good and it has to work. But almost everytime it's way funnier to play it as it goes.

Sometimes, the plan won't work just because the player forgot something. Maybe the plan would have worked if he swallowed the chest whole, but since he didnt, the chest is broken and the plan doesn't work.... And that's really funny because he ate a chest for nothing! If he told me all his intents before hand, I could have trumped the plan, I could have allowed the plan to work, but I would have prevented the players from ruining their own plan!

Gamgee
2015-06-19, 11:13 AM
Originally very focused rail roady campaign. A few years ago I got so good at being the GM I do the open world style now. I also have combined it with a good story at the same time.

Jay R
2015-06-19, 12:17 PM
Insult received.

Yes, I play with my friends, people I trust and respect. And they don't try to withhold information from me when I'm making a ruling. That's the point - trust goes two ways.

Except that as soon as they withhold something from you, you consider them conmen? That's not trust.

Second insult received. Please stop making up falsehoods about what happens in my game. It really doesn't forward the conversation in any useful direction.

The people I trust and respect and play with are trustworthy and respectable, and do not withhold relevant information from me.

Flickerdart
2015-06-19, 01:53 PM
Second insult received. Please stop making up falsehoods about what happens in my game. It really doesn't forward the conversation in any useful direction.

The people I trust and respect and play with are trustworthy and respectable, and do not withhold relevant information from me.
I'm not making up anything. You literally just called people who don't immediately tell the DM everything con men.

Jay R
2015-06-20, 07:15 AM
I'm not making up anything. You literally just called people who don't immediately tell the DM everything con men.

Yes, I did. And then you claimed I played with people I don't respect and trust. You made that up. It isn't true.

I told you that I played with respectable and trustworthy people, who don't withhold information from the DM. And then you made up a scenario that happens "as soon as they withhold something from you", after I told you that they don't.

Please stop making up things things and claiming they happen at my table. I have never had a player withhold relevant information, and I have never treated a player as a con man.

Please stop making up stories about what has happened at my games.

Callak
2015-06-21, 12:54 PM
Just curious as to what your dming style is.

Are you a very picky and hands on controlling type with every aspect including character creation?

Do you allow your players to have complete control of their characters?

Do you just guide the players in a certain direction and let the game play out with different twists and turns?

Please explain why

Just curious to see people responses.

My personal style is Gygaxian. But I often change styles to suit the group. When I game with my best friends it generally turns into a big game of improve eg. New group starts in the dungeon and I expect a death or two by the end of the 1st foray and back to town. My friends desiccating holy statues killing innkeeper's with horseheads and vomiting worms into urchin's mouths is a normal session. They do what they want and I try to make it seem part of the plot

Thrudd
2015-06-21, 01:55 PM
But my point is that a DM will make better rulings if the DM has full context of what the player is trying to achieve before the ruling. If a player has a nine-point plan, and he wants it to succeed, then that player needs to show the DM the entire plan in advance.

I don't see how it makes any difference what the player's ultimate plan is. If they ask you whether or not their character can accomplish something, why would you need to know the subsequent actions they intend to take? If context is important for a ruling, then you wouldn't make the ruling without confirming the context, right? (Assuming the players are asking for a hypothetical ruling of a situation that has not happened yet).

It isn't possible for the player to hide anything from the DM. If you don't tell the DM what your character is doing, it hasn't happened yet. If the DM hasn't described something, it isn't in the game yet.

Some Players might get angry if they think they can trick the DM by asking for a ruling, and then try to apply that ruling in a different situation get a negative response. This is not them hiding anything, nor is it a problem with the DM, it is a problem of player expectation and understanding. The DMs job is to rule fairly and consistent with the fictional reality presented. Lawyering on the part of the players ideally will not affect this. Either something makes sense for the setting or it doesn't, and nobody knows better than the DM who created the setting.

Reltzik
2015-06-21, 01:56 PM
Answering original questions in reverse order:

The players need to be the protagonists, the primary actors in the story, meaning that their choices should be what makes the story play out. The players are also my audience, meaning I have to make the story interesting to them, which is best accomplished by getting them to buy in and to import their own interests and motivations. My job is to give them a rough concept/direction/target to start with, set the stage for their antics, throw some obstacles in their way, and make sure they don't lose direction TOO much. Often I'll railroad the first mission, drop some plot coupons, and let them meander after that. If they want to drop the main plot line for a while to chase after buried treasure or something, that's fine, that's a direction too. OOC, I'll warn them that if they want to go charging off to a random dungeon where I'm not expecting them to go, they'll have to give me a week to prep, and they're cool with that.

Players MOSTLY have complete control of their characters, barring environmental interference. That means they can't just say they go run off if they're tied up or locked up, for example. Also, mind-control magic is a thing in some settings, and PCs can be hit with it too. And I'll warn them if their skill check is high enough to know that casting a fireball at an iron golem is a BAD idea, giving them a take-back.

I'll usually restrict character-creation options to core plus a few basic supplements, because too many options and too many rules bog things down and create opportunities for breakage. I don't want the players interested in the cool new combos they got from the feats from twenty different splatbooks, I want them interested in the setting they use the combos in and the villains they use them against and the goals they're using those combos to advance. Backgrounds I'll restrict somewhat for setting, and I will usually tell them outright something like, "You're free to choose your background, but it has to be compatible with this starting mission for this starting employer."

ShaneMRoth
2015-06-21, 02:39 PM
I don't see how it makes any difference what the player's ultimate plan is.

One of the cornerstones of my DM style is managing player expectations.

The more fully and deeply I understand what those expectations actually are, the more likely I am to manage them successfully.

In the theoretical case of the Dwarf Who Ate Too Much from post #30, there appear to be a number of specific expectations that attach to the dwarf's ability to eat an iron chest. None of them particularly obvious.

Is Step Two of his Cunning Plan: Enter An Iron Chest Eating Contest? or Become Proficient At Farting Iron? Does the plan have something to do with magnets? From the point of view of game mechanics, would it be a good idea for me to write a house rule? Should I cook up a Feat? (Ironcast Stomach, prerequisite is Con of 20 and adamantine teeth and Wisdom no higher than 5) Or, as the example implies, is this player's plan fatally flawed and doomed from the start?

Another cornerstone of my DM style is to conspire with the players to tell the best story possible. This requires, as has been mentioned consistently and repeatedly elsewhere on this thread, a level of reciprocal trust.

If, as the DM, I say "I need to know why you want to do this in order to make a better ruling", my players need to trust that I'm actually trying to make a better ruling and that my need to understand the why is a sincere need.

My DM style is all about that context.

Keltest
2015-06-21, 02:47 PM
One of the cornerstones of my DM style is managing player expectations.

The more fully and deeply I understand what those expectations actually are, the more likely I am to manage them successfully.

In the theoretical case of the Dwarf Who Ate Too Much from post #30, there appear to be a number of specific expectations that attach to the dwarf's ability to eat an iron chest. None of them particularly obvious.

Is Step Two of his Cunning Plan: Enter An Iron Chest Eating Contest? or Become Proficient At Farting Iron? Does the plan have something to do with magnets? From the point of view of game mechanics, would it be a good idea for me to write a house rule? Should I cook up a Feat? (Ironcast Stomach, prerequisite is Con of 20 and adamantine teeth and Wisdom no higher than 5) Or, as the example implies, is this player's plan fatally flawed and doomed from the start?

Another cornerstone of my DM style is to conspire with the players to tell the best story possible. This requires, as has been mentioned consistently and repeatedly elsewhere on this thread, a level of reciprocal trust.

If, as the DM, I say "I need to know why you want to do this in order to make a better ruling", my players need to trust that I'm actually trying to make a better ruling and that my need to understand the why is a sincere need.

My DM style is all about that context.

Please explain to me how your ruling would change based on context. It seems to me like you are at best expediting things that you would be doing anyway.

Thrudd
2015-06-21, 03:25 PM
One of the cornerstones of my DM style is managing player expectations.

The more fully and deeply I understand what those expectations actually are, the more likely I am to manage them successfully.

In the theoretical case of the Dwarf Who Ate Too Much from post #30, there appear to be a number of specific expectations that attach to the dwarf's ability to eat an iron chest. None of them particularly obvious.

Is Step Two of his Cunning Plan: Enter An Iron Chest Eating Contest? or Become Proficient At Farting Iron? Does the plan have something to do with magnets? From the point of view of game mechanics, would it be a good idea for me to write a house rule? Should I cook up a Feat? (Ironcast Stomach, prerequisite is Con of 20 and adamantine teeth and Wisdom no higher than 5) Or, as the example implies, is this player's plan fatally flawed and doomed from the start?

Another cornerstone of my DM style is to conspire with the players to tell the best story possible. This requires, as has been mentioned consistently and repeatedly elsewhere on this thread, a level of reciprocal trust.

If, as the DM, I say "I need to know why you want to do this in order to make a better ruling", my players need to trust that I'm actually trying to make a better ruling and that my need to understand the why is a sincere need.

My DM style is all about that context.

So you might rule in favor of the chest-eating if you think it will lead to something you want to happen, but would rule against it if not?
Wouldn't this be a very clear decision? either it's possible in your setting or it isn't, can dwarves eat iron or can't they? Regardless of why the player wants to do it.

Making rulings depending on the whim of story or player preference actually seems contrary to the desired goal of consistency. How will the players ever know what to expect from your setting?

ShaneMRoth
2015-06-21, 03:51 PM
So you might rule in favor of the chest-eating if you think it will lead to something you want to happen, but would rule against it if not?
Wouldn't this be a very clear decision? either it's possible in your setting or it isn't, can dwarves eat iron or can't they? Regardless of why the player wants to do it.

Suppose it turns out that the plan only requires that the dwarf get a large amount of iron in his stomach, and there is no affirmative need to actually chew the iron. He could then just break the iron chest into smaller pieces and swallow them without chewing them. No need to actually use his adamantine teeth, which are attached to his jaw with non-adamantine gums.

There is an actual guy who ate metal.

Michael Lotito. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michel_Lotito)

Dude ate a bike once. He didn't just start chewing on the bike. He broke it down into its parts and swallowed the parts whole. He chased the parts down with mineral oil. And he didn't do it in a single sitting. It took a while. Exactly how long? I don't know. I've never eaten a bike.

(This guy died at age 57. So, he probably was not doing himself any favors by eating metal.)

So, if the plan falls apart unless the iron pieces have the character's teeth marks on them, then that will affect my ruling.

I need to know why. Particularly when players start spit-balling and improvising in real time at the game table.

I have answered this question to the very best of my ability. I don't know what else to say.

Thrudd
2015-06-21, 04:33 PM
Suppose it turns out that the plan only requires that the dwarf get a large amount of iron in his stomach, and there is no affirmative need to actually chew the iron. He could then just break the iron chest into smaller pieces and swallow them without chewing them. No need to actually use his adamantine teeth, which are attached to his jaw with non-adamantine gums.

There is an actual guy who ate metal.

Michael Lotito. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michel_Lotito)

Dude ate a bike once. He didn't just start chewing on the bike. He broke it down into its parts and swallowed the parts whole. He chased the parts down with mineral oil. And he didn't do it in a single sitting. It took a while. Exactly how long? I don't know. I've never eaten a bike.

(This guy died at age 57. So, he probably was not doing himself any favors by eating metal.)

So, if the plan falls apart unless the iron pieces have the character's teeth marks on them, then that will affect my ruling.

I need to know why. Particularly when players start spit-balling and improvising in real time at the game table.

I have answered this question to the very best of my ability. I don't know what else to say.

Oh, I see. You're saying that you need as much detail as possible about what the player means when they ask something. Sure, I agree with that. If the player asks " can my dwarf eat an iron chest", they need to clarify if they are trying to it chew up with their jaw and teeth, or break it up with tools and swallow little pieces of iron. if they swallow little pieces if iron, you would warn them that there will be a saving throw required if they eat more than one or two pieces, or whatever you decide. It doesn't matter why they want to do that, but their intended actions do need to be clarified so they don't have a different picture of what is happening than you do, and your rulings make sense to them.

ShaneMRoth
2015-06-21, 04:37 PM
Oh, I see. You're saying that you need as much detail as possible about what the player means when they ask something. Sure, I agree with that. If the player asks " can my dwarf eat an iron chest", they need to clarify if they are trying to it chew up with their jaw and teeth, or break it up with tools and swallow little pieces of iron. if they swallow little pieces if iron, you would warn them that there will be a saving throw required if they eat more than one or two pieces, or whatever you decide. It doesn't matter why they want to do that, but their intended actions do need to be clarified so they don't have a different picture of what is happening than you do, and your rulings make sense to them.

Very much so. If the DM and the Player are not on the same sheet of music, the whole orchestra suffers.

Keltest
2015-06-21, 04:48 PM
Very much so. If the DM and the Player are not on the same sheet of music, the whole orchestra suffers.

On this we are in agreement, however that's rather different than needing to know all of the 9 steps of his plan. Theres nothing wrong with making sure you know what the player is trying to do now.

goto124
2015-06-21, 11:43 PM
If a player has something as complicated as a 9-step plan, I'll be suspicious of her rules-lawyering, munchkining, and/or trying to 'cheat' the system.

Am I wrong?

Flickerdart
2015-06-22, 06:58 AM
If a player has something as complicated as a 9-step plan, I'll be suspicious of her rules-lawyering, munchkining, and/or trying to 'cheat' the system.

Am I wrong?
Yes. A 9-step plan (or for that matter, a 90 step plan) never has to touch any mechanics at all.


Yes, I did. And then you claimed I played with people I don't respect and trust. You made that up. It isn't true.
Never said that. Don't put words in my mouth.



I told you that I played with respectable and trustworthy people, who don't withhold information from the DM. And then you made up a scenario that happens "as soon as they withhold something from you", after I told you that they don't.

Please stop making up things things and claiming they happen at my table. I have never had a player withhold relevant information, and I have never treated a player as a con man.

Please stop making up stories about what has happened at my games.

I am not making up scenarios - I am describing the consequences of your antagonistic stance as you have laid it out. It is entirely possible that no player in the history of your entire table has withheld any kind information from you, but you are saying that if they did so, you would consider them trying to pull a con. "But they don't, so I don't" is not a rebuttal.

Segev
2015-06-22, 10:32 AM
As a DM, I tend to be lazy. I let my players use any rules that I have access to, including those which they provide for me, as long as they're up-front about what they're planning to do with their builds and any tricks they wish to exploit. I tend, because I like high power, to be very permissive. I also tend to be of the "fix it when it's broken" school; if it turns out something is bad for the game, I reserve (up front) the right to ask them to change their build or how they're using it to avoid the problem. If they refuse, they either simply lose the ability without refund or are asked to leave the game. This is not done heavy-handedly unless I'm left with no choice; I always try to work it out OOC with the player first. (So far, I have had little trouble.)



I actually agree with Shane on the "tell the DM your clever plan from the get-go" point. One hallmark of the player with whom I most associate the contravailing behavior has a tendency to have "clever plans" which he never shares with the DM, and which he coyly asks if he SHOULD tell because he doesn't want to "ruin the surprise." His plans usually turn out to require accepting several assumptions and allowing narration to override mechanics, and are presented as "I do this!" as if it's a fiat accompli before the DM can even break it down into a series of rolls or determine what mechanics come into play, even on opposed actions.

This tends to lead to a breakdown of narrative flow as retconning would have to ensue to "undo" the things the player declared done.


Regarding the issue of such a "clever plan" being broken down into a series of rulings and only put together at the end, I'm also likely to ask the player what his goal is, because I can tell him whether it's feasible or not (and then let him argue with me about it if his plan really is that clever). But if he gets a series of rulings that turn out to be ill-thought-out for his specific plan, then enacts something that shouldn't work, I'm very likely to tell him flat-out that he's found a bug in my rulings, and that I'm going to change them retroactively to account for it.

If he'd told me from the outset what his plan was, we could have avoided it. Even then, this is only a "problem" if he's already invested resources in the "clever plan" that are now wasted because the rules on which he was relying are about to change. I don't like doing that to players, but trying to play "keep away" with the laws of physics against the GM just doesn't work.

That doesn't mean all "clever plans" will fail! I don't have to have the result in my plot to allow it. It does have to avoid causing serious balance problems for the game as a whole, or failing the "invisible tower shield" test. (i.e., if a rule glitch leads to something nonsensical on the face of it, I will probably rule 0 it out.)

Flickerdart
2015-06-22, 11:04 AM
There's nothing wrong with letting a character enact three steps of the four-step plan and then have it turn out that the fourth step is a dud. Many a stratagem has failed at the last stage.

Segev
2015-06-22, 12:14 PM
There's nothing wrong with letting a character enact three steps of the four-step plan and then have it turn out that the fourth step is a dud. Many a stratagem has failed at the last stage.

There isn't. The issue arises when they try to enact all four steps in hypothetical questions asking for rulings in a vacuum, then try to recombine the rulings for their plan to be "DMproof" afterwards. If they invest the resources only to find the rulings are changing slightly or are interpreted differently in some specific way, they start to act like the DM is jerking them around.

Keltest
2015-06-22, 12:21 PM
There isn't. The issue arises when they try to enact all four steps in hypothetical questions asking for rulings in a vacuum, then try to recombine the rulings for their plan to be "DMproof" afterwards. If they invest the resources only to find the rulings are changing slightly or are interpreted differently in some specific way, they start to act like the DM is jerking them around.

So I ask again, what is an example of how you would change your ruling based on what they intend to do after the hypothetical success of step 1?

NichG
2015-06-22, 12:37 PM
As far as anecdotal evidence, in the cases where I have seen players withhold information from the DM:

- Two cases were the player knowing that they had something overpowered that they didn't want nerfed (in one case, they wanted to get away with using it; in the other case, it was that they had a theme of playing super-powerful characters who constantly tried to hide their true powers)
- A few cases of 'my character sheet isn't quite right, and if I have to provide details its going to mean a tedious audit/I'll find that the thing I thought was really awesome doesn't actually work that way'
- One case of intentionally trying to create a shocking reveal mind-screw, which didn't actually end up working and just sort of made everyone pissed off (in that particular case, I happened to be the player).
- A few cases of 'the DM explicitly asked not to be told' - not sure you can count these as withholding

Based on those experiences I would definitely say that it should at least be considered to be a warning sign that some sort of bad DM/player dynamic is going on which needs to be addressed.

Flickerdart
2015-06-22, 12:47 PM
There isn't. The issue arises when they try to enact all four steps in hypothetical questions asking for rulings in a vacuum, then try to recombine the rulings for their plan to be "DMproof" afterwards. If they invest the resources only to find the rulings are changing slightly or are interpreted differently in some specific way, they start to act like the DM is jerking them around.
See, I think that a ruling should be in a vacuum, because then it's not tainted by the bias of the DM. Physics changing themselves based on why something is happening is something that doesn't sit well with me. An ability that does a thing should do that thing every time. If you make a ruling based on specific contexts, it will bite you in the butt later when your PCs try something else that depends on it working that way. If you don't want them to do that, do you reverse the ruling - and make the thing they did in the past legal?

Keltest
2015-06-22, 12:58 PM
See, I think that a ruling should be in a vacuum, because then it's not tainted by the bias of the DM. Physics changing themselves based on why something is happening is something that doesn't sit well with me. An ability that does a thing should do that thing every time. If you make a ruling based on specific contexts, it will bite you in the butt later when your PCs try something else that depends on it working that way. If you don't want them to do that, do you reverse the ruling - and make the thing they did in the past legal?

My thoughts exactly. Why should it matter if that dwarf is eating the iron chest to enter an iron farting contest instead of addressing an iron deficiency? Is there going to be some radically different way he eats the thing?

NichG
2015-06-22, 01:46 PM
See, I think that a ruling should be in a vacuum, because then it's not tainted by the bias of the DM. Physics changing themselves based on why something is happening is something that doesn't sit well with me. An ability that does a thing should do that thing every time. If you make a ruling based on specific contexts, it will bite you in the butt later when your PCs try something else that depends on it working that way. If you don't want them to do that, do you reverse the ruling - and make the thing they did in the past legal?

Often, when this kind of ruling is called for, it has to do with something that isn't easily decided just by looking at what's written. The DM is being asked to write a new law of physics right then and there. Its hard to do that on the spot in a way which is going to be completely future proof against every situation that could come up, especially if its being done in a vacuum of knowing what sorts of situations the player envisions it coming up in. On the other hand, if the DM understands why they're being asked to write a new law of physics, it gives them a better idea of what particular consequences they need to pay very close attention to and be careful about, which drastically reduces the chance that later on they'll need to ret-con their ruling because of something broken or stupid.

To put it another way, in the absence of that information, the safest response that the DM can make for the stability of the game is 'no, you can't do that'. However, that's a very limited and constraining way to play. Giving the DM more information better allows them to sometimes say 'sure, and here's how it will work' without worrying that it's going to break things or that they're being tricked into something.

Flickerdart
2015-06-22, 02:01 PM
Often, when this kind of ruling is called for, it has to do with something that isn't easily decided just by looking at what's written. The DM is being asked to write a new law of physics right then and there. Its hard to do that on the spot in a way which is going to be completely future proof against every situation that could come up, especially if its being done in a vacuum of knowing what sorts of situations the player envisions it coming up in. On the other hand, if the DM understands why they're being asked to write a new law of physics, it gives them a better idea of what particular consequences they need to pay very close attention to and be careful about, which drastically reduces the chance that later on they'll need to ret-con their ruling because of something broken or stupid.

To put it another way, in the absence of that information, the safest response that the DM can make for the stability of the game is 'no, you can't do that'. However, that's a very limited and constraining way to play. Giving the DM more information better allows them to sometimes say 'sure, and here's how it will work' without worrying that it's going to break things or that they're being tricked into something.
As long as we're giving credence to anecdotal evidence, I've never had to reverse a ruling, and I also never pump my players for information on what they want to do beforehand. Some rules combine together to have powerful results, and others don't; I always strive to make rulings that approximate RAI as best as possible, and that means not caring about the circumstances in which the ruling is requested. A ruling resulting in consequences is no different than a cut-and-dry rule resulting in consequences, but I don't go around changing those just because the players want to do something I don't like.

NichG
2015-06-22, 03:01 PM
As long as we're giving credence to anecdotal evidence, I've never had to reverse a ruling, and I also never pump my players for information on what they want to do beforehand. Some rules combine together to have powerful results, and others don't; I always strive to make rulings that approximate RAI as best as possible, and that means not caring about the circumstances in which the ruling is requested. A ruling resulting in consequences is no different than a cut-and-dry rule resulting in consequences, but I don't go around changing those just because the players want to do something I don't like.

Whereas I'm strongly of the opinion that RAW and RAI matter less than the game being a stable and enjoyable experience. If that means that the in-game laws of physics have to glitch and change so that the game remains playable, that's still the lesser of two evils.

And of course the gentleman's agreement remains one of the best tools to avoid that kind of situation. That's another reason to get information from the player about what they're planning - so if it's going to be disruptive, you can say 'hey, you do realize that this will make wealth irrelevant, right?' or things like that.

Flickerdart
2015-06-22, 03:05 PM
Whereas I'm strongly of the opinion that RAW and RAI matter less than the game being a stable and enjoyable experience. If that means that the in-game laws of physics have to glitch and change so that the game remains playable, that's still the lesser of two evils.

And of course the gentleman's agreement remains one of the best tools to avoid that kind of situation. That's another reason to get information from the player about what they're planning - so if it's going to be disruptive, you can say 'hey, you do realize that this will make wealth irrelevant, right?' or things like that.
Players are not going to do anything that makes the game less enjoyable for them. They also know full well what the consequences of their actions will be (with the information they have, of course - any on-the-spot rulings by the DM will blindside them and make them incapable of planning), and if they're doing it anyway that means that's what they find fun. Being passive-aggressive about it isn't the way to make the game better.

Tiktik Ironclaw
2015-06-22, 03:26 PM
I can't really say what kind of DM I am, as I've only run a few sessions here and there for my one friend (who refuses to create more than one character, making it very hard to create survivable adventures). I started out with a kind of listing campaign about a massive war that was divided between elves and every other race except orcs, which I now try to avoid. My next attempt was to create 20 adventures, each taking him up a level, but we got into the fourth one and the session ended, and he lost the character sheet after a few weeks (he has a lot of after school activities, whereas I'm not involved in anything) so I ran Tomb of Horrors with his Boccob cleric that didn't role play, while I ran five other characters to balance everything, and the hobgoblin fighter railroaded everybody around the dangerous traps and the elf rogue walked into the nudifying traps three times, because I made her.:smallbiggrin:

That 20 adventure solo campaign was exceptionally bad with railroading, in that I even WROTE WHAT HE DID. It's fun to read and imagine, with some intrigue and Assassin's Creed style acrobatics, but it wouldn't have been good if I made it there. I want to vomit just seeing that I wrote it. He probably wouldn't have minded it, seeing that I roleplayed the character more than he did.

My current DM project is to make a fun and interactive world with several campaigns to pick from, which I will then advance from for each group, progressing the campaign world through time. The setting is a combination of Westeros, the OOTS-verse, Looking for Group, Monty Python and the Holy Grail, the Princess Bride, and general D&D stuff. Example campaigns are the return of Daenerys (which is just Red Hand of Doom with Unsullied and Wee Jas clerics), a quest for the Holy Grail with King Arthur, stopping Xykon from destroying Redcloak's expansive goblinoid nation, and going through major adventure sites while battling tomb raiders from an evil woven nation devoted to conquest. Hopefully this comes to fruition.

Flickerdart
2015-06-22, 03:32 PM
The setting is a combination of Westeros, the OOTS-verse, Looking for Group, Monty Python and the Holy Grail, the Princess Bride, and general D&D stuff.
So...a grimdark setting spliced with comedy? That risks all sorts of mood whiplash. :smalltongue:

NichG
2015-06-22, 04:06 PM
Players are not going to do anything that makes the game less enjoyable for them. They also know full well what the consequences of their actions will be (with the information they have, of course - any on-the-spot rulings by the DM will blindside them and make them incapable of planning), and if they're doing it anyway that means that's what they find fun. Being passive-aggressive about it isn't the way to make the game better.

I don't know who you've been playing with, but IME players do things that make the game less enjoyable for them all the time. I've seen that both from the point of view of the GM and as a fellow player. I've seen players look for ways to rush character growth and then get bored when they're basically 'done' with their character's main trick (e.g. getting past WBL or fast-tracking to high levels, then running out of game to play). I've seen players set challenges or artificial limits for themselves and then get bitter about the fact that their characters aren't able to keep up. I've even seen players pull out very extreme combos to do tens of thousands of damage per round, and then realize that it's no different than doing 500 damage per round and get bored with big numbers in general. I've seen players sacrifice the fun of others at the table for their own jollies, and even sacrifice their own fun out of feelings of guilt towards the other players.

People aren't perfect beings. Players and GMs both make errors in judgement that do interfere with their enjoyment and the enjoyment of others at the table. The thing to do in those cases is to admit that a mistake was made and fix it, rather than just shrugging and saying 'well, thats the precedent now, gotta live with it'.

Segev
2015-06-22, 04:13 PM
Players won't do things to make a game (immediately) less enjoyable for themselves...but they might do so in ways that make it less so for the other players (intentionally or not).

As a general rule, I'm very permissive as a DM. However, I don't like having "surprises" sprung on me by players in the form of "clever plans." I don't mind genuinely clever ideas, but "clever plans" typically are based on huge assumptions and not a little god-moding with the hope that retconning will be too uncomfortable. It's a form of refuge in audacity. I don't mind players doing awesome things; I just prefer to be complicit in it in the form of knowing about it when they plan it out so that I can already have thought out what the outcome will be.

I'm a smart man, but I'm not quick on the draw. I do not improvise well.

And often, the way that the piecemeil "rule on this in a vacuum" things have been presented by those who know they're pushing the boundaries will present it as a stand-alone "this is too cool not to allow" thing. And it often is very cool. Being a permissive DM, I am inclined to permit it. But after 3-4 of these, a rule I had not thought of that already exists turns out to interact with these permissive rulings to create something which obliterates encounters. Not a problem in and of itself, except that it becomes "PC Cleverplans and his audience of other PCs granted permission to be present while he's awesome."

Or, worse, the player enacts the "clever plan," and I tell him "no," because while each of those abilities work the way I ruled individually, when put together like that, the edge cases ignored by the vacuum ruling come into play to make it patently ludicrous. e.g., Tower Shields grant cover, right? Sure. Cover lets me hide, right? Sure. My Tower Shield is my equipment, right? Sure. My equipment is hidden when I'm hidden, right? Sure. So I can hide behind my Tower Shield and have it be hidden behind itself! Uh....

Each statement, in a vacuum, is perfectly reasonable to rule as "okay." It's only when taken together to achieve that (per-RAW legal!) rules glitch that the problem is revealed.

If the player had told me, "So I have this idea for hiding behind my shield and hiding my shield behind itself to achieve invisibility," I'd have said "no, there's no way that will work, but please lay out the plan." I could even have my mind changed if he had something that did make sense. If a player had waited until the thick of the action to reveal his "clever plan" based on all those rulings, and everything hinged on it working...he'd now feel cheated that I'm changing the rules on him, despite the obvious glitch in the rulings which was not so obvious before, and despite this clearly not making sense in the context of the individual rulings nor all together. And now his character may well go from invinicibly winning the encounter to seriously in danger of dying, and it's "Segev's fault." Such Segfaults are preferably avoided.

Flickerdart
2015-06-22, 05:21 PM
I don't know who you've been playing with, but IME players do things that make the game less enjoyable for them all the time. I've seen that both from the point of view of the GM and as a fellow player. I've seen players look for ways to rush character growth and then get bored when they're basically 'done' with their character's main trick (e.g. getting past WBL or fast-tracking to high levels, then running out of game to play). I've seen players set challenges or artificial limits for themselves and then get bitter about the fact that their characters aren't able to keep up. I've even seen players pull out very extreme combos to do tens of thousands of damage per round, and then realize that it's no different than doing 500 damage per round and get bored with big numbers in general. I've seen players sacrifice the fun of others at the table for their own jollies, and even sacrifice their own fun out of feelings of guilt towards the other players.

People aren't perfect beings. Players and GMs both make errors in judgement that do interfere with their enjoyment and the enjoyment of others at the table. The thing to do in those cases is to admit that a mistake was made and fix it, rather than just shrugging and saying 'well, thats the precedent now, gotta live with it'.
I see it as my role to make sure my players are never "done" playing the game. A guy who completes the ultimate 10k damage combo is no different than the party defeating the BBEG and claiming his castle and armies - he needs new challenges, that's it.


I'm a smart man, but I'm not quick on the draw. I do not improvise well.
That might be part of it - I'm very good at the speed chess sort of thing.


Or, worse, the player enacts the "clever plan," and I tell him "no," because while each of those abilities work the way I ruled individually, when put together like that, the edge cases ignored by the vacuum ruling come into play to make it patently ludicrous. e.g., Tower Shields grant cover, right? Sure. Cover lets me hide, right? Sure. My Tower Shield is my equipment, right? Sure. My equipment is hidden when I'm hidden, right? Sure. So I can hide behind my Tower Shield and have it be hidden behind itself! Uh....

Each statement, in a vacuum, is perfectly reasonable to rule as "okay." It's only when taken together to achieve that (per-RAW legal!) rules glitch that the problem is revealed.
Your equipment is not always hidden when you are. For instance, you might be carrying a ladder, and then hide behind a tree. You are hidden, but your ladder is not. In a vacuum, that's the one that's problematic, and hey - it also happens to fix the tower shield thing!

NichG
2015-06-22, 07:27 PM
I see it as my role to make sure my players are never "done" playing the game. A guy who completes the ultimate 10k damage combo is no different than the party defeating the BBEG and claiming his castle and armies - he needs new challenges, that's it.

Sure, and in his case he took that upon himself somewhat with his next character, because he realized that the damage race was boring and wanted to try something else. However, that doesn't change the fact that he basically was running headlong at 'I want to make my damage as gross as possible' and then realized that he had made himself bored. Its not necessarily a bad outcome in the big picture (its not like he quit tabletop games over it or anything), but its an example where chasing something that appeared to have the immediate consequence of increasing his fun ended up causing problems for his enjoyment of that character in the long run.

ShaneMRoth
2015-06-22, 08:50 PM
See, I think that a ruling should be in a vacuum, because then it's not tainted by the bias of the DM.

DM bias can be abused, and can be exercised in bad faith.

Having said that, DM bias is neither inherently bad nor inherently inappropriate.

If you don't trust your DM, your game experience will suffer.

ShaneMRoth
2015-06-22, 08:54 PM
People aren't perfect beings. Players and GMs both make errors in judgement that do interfere with their enjoyment and the enjoyment of others at the table. The thing to do in those cases is to admit that a mistake was made and fix it, rather than just shrugging and saying 'well, thats the precedent now, gotta live with it'.

I concur strongly with the spirit and the letter of this statement.

goto124
2015-06-23, 02:52 AM
If the player had told me, "So I have this idea for hiding behind my shield and hiding my shield behind itself to achieve invisibility," I'd have said "no, there's no way that will work, but please lay out the plan."

You left out the entire table laughing.

Segev
2015-06-23, 10:12 AM
Your equipment is not always hidden when you are. For instance, you might be carrying a ladder, and then hide behind a tree. You are hidden, but your ladder is not. In a vacuum, that's the one that's problematic, and hey - it also happens to fix the tower shield thing!Sure, but my point was more in how the "argument" was laid out for this "clever plan." One of the rulings the DM is "tricked" into agreeing to is that equipment is hidden if you're hidden. Sure, the DM maybe SHOULD have thought of "well a ladder you're carrying won't be hidden just because you are; it could poke out," but he could be stuck "in the box" thinking about the guy's gear, and considering whether spikey armor aesthetic choices which don't offer a mechanical penalty to stealth should suddenly invalidate successful stealth checks.

Part of it is, thus, that I, as a DM, acknowledge that I can and will make mistakes, and that sometimes I'll need to correct them on the fly. I won't let my mistakes corner me into stupidly silly situations.


You left out the entire table laughing.

Well, yes, but that's because I'm used to that. We make ludicrous suggestions as jokes all the time! :smallsmile: