Is my style bad?

[DraconicVixen]

I've never really run a true campaign, but out of desire to play D&D, I started DMing minisessions with friends- things that could easily be pulled off with an hour or two of spare time and some quickly cobbled characters. I'll admit that the time frame isn't ideal, as it always left us with a cliffhanger, but no one ever complained about it. We played often as we could to make up for the inability to sit down to a focused session...

That being said, that is an awful way to play (nonetheless we have plenty of fun), but that's not my worries. I worry that I will be a poor DM. I do not know every rule, that will come with time. I don't expect to memorize every ruling either.

I feel the way I DM is very arbitrary. My campaigns try to do about 75/25 RP/combat, and I feel maybe the rules are a little more loosely defined in this. Combat seems to be where most things get hung up, but even in combat I can be arbitrary. I do not ignore 3.5 rulings, I incorporate as many of them as is necessary and use them as a guideline, but more often than not, I wander away from them. It isn't that I don't care, I just hate being bound my rules and law (hence my favoritism towards CN PCs). I favor freedom without being completely oblivious. My last DM was glued to his book, and I hardly use mine for little more than the occasional class/character/skill/spell/chart reference.

[frogglesmash]

As long as you're consistent with your rulings and you don't modify core mechanics in such a way that ruins one of your player's characters then I don't really see the problem. The main thing is to be upfront about your DM style with new potential players so as to avoid arguments later on.

[smcmike]

Is everyone having fun? What is the problem, then?

[DraconicVixen]

Everyone is having fun , and I don't ignore core mechanics. I just don't restrict myself to the rulings alone. So far the people I've played with enjoyed it more than our by--the-book, word-for-word DM.

I know my first signa of trouble are when the players start to complain and I make sure to keep their feelings and thoughts in mind when making decisions. I just wanted to see how the rest of GitP felt. I don't want to ruin a good game with botched skills.

[frogglesmash]

Rule #1 is that everyone has fun, as long as that's happening you know you're doing a good job, the only reason people bang on about rules so much on these forums is that it's the only way to have a more or less unbiased discussion about the game.

[DraconicVixen]

Good... Then at least I don't have to worry too much. When people start to complain (things don't make sense, this is ridiculous, that's not right, etc) and the fun is ruined, I'll adjust my DM style.

[Aegis013]

It doesn't sound like you're a bad DM from your posts, but if you run into a player saying "that doesn't make sense" or "that's against the rules" keep a stock answer on hand like, "if your character has ranks in x skill, you know something is strange, but aren't sure what. There is a reason though, and if your characters don't find out during the session I'll fill you in after." A response like this assuages the frustration on the player's end and gives them the impression that what you're doing isn't quite as arbitrary.

It can also be interesting to investigate why for the players and give you extra mini-plots to draw on.

[Hiro Quester]

As long as everyone knows what the rules are, this should be fine.

The problems will occur when a player makes a plan for solving a problem, and his plan follows known rules. But then you rule that this universe doesn't work that way.

The rules known by all create a shared universe, in which we plan and act. Some of the best fun comes from a well crafted plan working as planned.

If the rules of physics (arcane spells, action economy, grappling) work one way this week, but work differently next week, it will be hard to trust that making plans is even worth trying. That would be less fun.

So as long as your "arbitrary" exceptions to the usual rules are consistent, all should by fun.

[Grod_The_Giant]

As others have said, it sounds like you're well aware of the potential pitfalls, and are doing a good job of avoiding them so far. It also sounds like you (and your group) might enjoy a more rules-light system than 3.5. Have you looked at any of the other thousands of systems out there? Perhaps something like Savage Worlds or Mutants and Masterminds?

[DraconicVixen]

I honestly haven't considered the possibility of other systems. I'm happy to just learn what I have here and build on it. Most of my arbitrary calls are from lack of experience and doing what seems sensible at the time. I don't want to spend 10-15 minutes digging through the book and chew up valuable time unless it is something that I'd potentially breaking.

One of my most recent exceptions was a love charn that a character unknowingly acquired. He equipped it without knowing what it did, and occasionally people would walk up to him VERY interested. Those npcs didn't get a chance for a save, as I was I wanted him to have a way of figuring out just what was happening. Likewise, I wouldn't pull that on a PC, though I have been known to do staggered checks. If they made a fortitude save against the charm, there would be successive levels of accomplishment or failure dependent on how much they passed/failed the check. I'm not a fan of "You did it/you fail it."

For instance, a roll of 14 on a DC of 12 for the charm may result in then resisting, but still become flush, whereas higher rolls would experience less effects. Lower would have resulted in compounding forms of genuine attraction.

[jok]

I would recommend playing D&D 5th edition. Since your group seems to be not hardcore book diving gamers, a systhem that runs faster with comparable flavour is my recommendation.

[P.F.]

So there are two types of "role-playing games," the type we talk about in this forum, so-called "table-top" or "pen-and-paper" games, and the kind you might have played in HS/ College drama class, the so-called "cooperative storytelling" or "improvisation" games.

In the latter type of role-playing, we follow something called "The Rule of Yes," which essentially requires that you acknowledge other players' (i.e., actors') contributions to the story. There's a whole slew of corollaries and derivations of this rule, but the important part is that it keeps things inclusive, reduces conflict, and moves the story forward.

A similar concept can be applied to DMing: when a player asks to do something the DM has not anticipated, it's much better to respond with "Yes, you can try" than with "no." Then you an set up the parameters of success or failure. This encourages innovation from the players, but requires that the DM be open to the possibility that s/he might not get what s/he wants.

It sounds like your DMing style is working fine, even if it is a bit arbitrary. As long as you are making arbitrary "Yes" rulings instead of arbitrarialy saying "no" to every player suggestion, you'll probably be fine. However, I would caution you not to rely too heavily on the presence or absence of complaints as the gauge of your effectiveness. It may not be a problem with your current group at this time, but players are human, and if they discover they can complain their way our of your arbitration, the temptation to do so will eventually overwhelm even the most well-mannered players. An otherwise ideal player might be having romantic woes, or an ailing family member, and complain about the game when s/he is really upset about something much more important, but unrelated.

So, to make a short answer long, to address the title of the thread, I would say,

No.

[atemu1234]

Yeah, you seem fine, just keep doing what you're doing.

[Zrak]

In the latter type of role-playing, we follow something called "The Rule of Yes," which essentially requires that you acknowledge other players' (i.e., actors') contributions to the story.

Isn't it "Yes and" not just "Yes"? Like, you're supposed to go along with whatever but also add something to it. It's obviously not directly relevant to this situation, but I want to know if recent sitcom depictions of improv have been lying to me.

[Inevitability]

The rules are there to avoid the childish 'hit you! no, you didn't!'' situations. They exist to create a consistent framework in which the players can be certain of what can and what can't be done.

If you can avoid situations where people don't know what they can or can't do, there is no reason to feel bad about removing the rules.

[Yahzi]

As DM you can make any arbitrary ruling you want, as long as it is consistent.

If you say "this is the way the world works," and it has always worked that way, and will always work that way, then you're good. If you make a ruling and a player says, "If I had known that, I would never have..." then you need to back and let him not have done that. Because he would have known, because the world always worked that way. And in the future, when one of your players uses your rule to crush your BBEG, you need to let him be crushed.

[Anonymouswizard]

It sounds like you're fine, much better than many GMs I know, just remember the following:

I improvisation exercises the rule is 'yea, and'. However, while GM, your most important tool is 'yes, but'. If the PCs make a plan that will break the game, whatever it is, and you don't want the session to end after just 30 minutes, instead of saying 'no, the plan doesn't work', say 'yes, but [something they hadn't thought about]'.

The game also tends to run a lot smoother when the GM isn't glued to the book: I tend to only have the book open during combat or to check powers (except during Shadowrun, but I still haven't cracked all the subsystems there, 3.5 is generally easier), and otherwise let the players check it if they want to use a rule (this was thanks to a GM of mine who never opened the rulebook during play, and tasked either the asking player or out of focus players to check the rules). But this is also a way of saying 'a GM who knows the system is better than one who doesn't', whether that knowledge of the system extends to just the basic mechanics, or if they can recite whole subsystems at you. So congrats on being able to run combat without referencing that action rules every two minutes.

[DraconicVixen]

Definitely thank you all! I'm thankful for the multiple view points of everyone around. I'd rather not invest in a new system as all the players have started to grasp 3.5 fairly well. We're playing, stumbling and learning! It's lots of fun.

I don't deviate from the rules so far that it breaks the world, but I do for the enjoyment of the player. My gauge of effectiveness is usually their enjoyment. If my players aren't having fun, then I need to correct what in doing.

As far as consistency goes, I don't throw every slight whim at them. That would make the world unpredictable. If I deviate, I make sure to deviate consistently. My players do a lot of things I don't consider, and I don't ever tell them no, not unless it is detrimental to the game environment. I usually tell them, "You can try." That doesn't mean that they will succeed at what they are attempting to do, and in occasion, if I think it is a bad idea, I may give then alternate considerations.

I'm not sure what a BBEG is however.

[jstingray]

No, If the players are having fun and you are having fun, it works. My DM does this too. He will create a campaign with everything that he made up and on occasion, he will change the rules due to conflicts such as a prestige class that talks about being neutral, but you must be good. So keep playing and have fun!:smallsmile:

[Nibbens]

I've never really run a true campaign, but out of desire to play D&D, I started DMing minisessions with friends- things that could easily be pulled off with an hour or two of spare time and some quickly cobbled characters. I'll admit that the time frame isn't ideal, as it always left us with a cliffhanger, but no one ever complained about it. We played often as we could to make up for the inability to sit down to a focused session...

That being said, that is an awful way to play (nonetheless we have plenty of fun), but that's not my worries. I worry that I will be a poor DM. I do not know every rule, that will come with time. I don't expect to memorize every ruling either.

I feel the way I DM is very arbitrary. My campaigns try to do about 75/25 RP/combat, and I feel maybe the rules are a little more loosely defined in this. Combat seems to be where most things get hung up, but even in combat I can be arbitrary. I do not ignore 3.5 rulings, I incorporate as many of them as is necessary and use them as a guideline, but more often than not, I wander away from them. It isn't that I don't care, I just hate being bound my rules and law (hence my favoritism towards CN PCs). I favor freedom without being completely oblivious. My last DM was glued to his book, and I hardly use mine for little more than the occasional class/character/skill/spell/chart reference.

I think that the first thing that needs to be said is that if you're asking this question, you're a lot better off than those who don't. If you're concerned about your players having fun, and you're coming to the forums to double check yourself, then you're doing the right thing.

Yes, DMing is a skill that gets better with time. And being aware of what your players like in their games is vital to having a good time while playing. If your players are digging what you're doing, then keep on doing what you do and as you do always look to improve. That ginormous book we have for rules is a bit cumbersome and no one expects you to have all of the rules memorized.

The one thing that I would tell you to try is this: When you make a ruling about the rules quickly to make sure you don't get bogged down in rules (and thus taking away from your precious play time) always go back later to the books after the game to see what the rule was. Every time you play, you'll learn something new, until you don't have to anymore. :)

[DraconicVixen]

Awesome :) I do make a plan of checking the rules at some point after the match,as I hate to be in accurate or contradictory.

I do have another question though, if it keeps us on topic. Most people here have stated that DMPCs are bad, and I've experienced that disappointment myself. One way we managed a worm around was for the DM to create a character and have someone to play the character for them.

My question is thus; what about NPCs? I have NPCs that I would love to pop into the party to join them for an adventure, or become regular appearances in the story. They'll have an agenda completely separate from the PC even if they fight alongside them. I like the idea, but is this still no-no?

[TheIronGolem]

Awesome :) I do make a plan of checking the rules at some point after the match,as I hate to be in accurate or contradictory.

I do have another question though, if it keeps us on topic. Most people here have stated that DMPCs are bad, and I've experienced that disappointment myself. One way we managed a worm around was for the DM to create a character and have someone to play the character for them.

My question is thus; what about NPCs? I have NPCs that I would love to pop into the party to join them for an adventure, or become regular appearances in the story. They'll have an agenda completely separate from the PC even if they fight alongside them. I like the idea, but is this still no-no?

DMPC's aren't "bad" as such, but they're easy to mess up. I would recommend holding off on their use until you have your sea legs as a DM. They'll still be there.

[DraconicVixen]

Okay, I'll keep it simple for now. Complexity can come as I gain my bearings.

[Nibbens]

Awesome :) I do make a plan of checking the rules at some point after the match,as I hate to be in accurate or contradictory.

Good, if it's going to be awhile between when you check and when you play, maybe write down a list as they come up. lol.


I do have another question though, if it keeps us on topic. Most people here have stated that DMPCs are bad, and I've experienced that disappointment myself. One way we managed a worm around was for the DM to create a character and have someone to play the character for them.

My question is thus; what about NPCs? I have NPCs that I would love to pop into the party to join them for an adventure, or become regular appearances in the story. They'll have an agenda completely separate from the PC even if they fight alongside them. I like the idea, but is this still no-no?

It can be a fun experience if your PCs have never encountered play like this before. At a certain point in the Module RotRL your PCs gain enough additional members in their group to equal the number of PCs. My solution was to have all the PCs play their character as well as their NPC.

At first thy thought it would be cool to have double their numbers, but it reeeeeealy bogged down play - and that they didn't like. Lesson learned, My guys don't like NPCs in their party that much. Your guys may be different. :)

[DraconicVixen]

Well... I definitely won't be doing a ton of NPCs. That will bog this down rather rapidly. My idea was maybe an NPC accompanying them on a short quest, or randomly appearing as a villain/assistant/etc. Never more than two. I really don't want to play a full character while trying to DM as well.

[P.F.]

Well you can certainly have lots and lots of NPC's that don't go a-questing with the PC's, but you're right to be wary of too many NPC's in the party.

For in-party NPC's I use a "level versus duration" rule of thumb, and make sure that NPC's detailed to the party have only one job to do. This keeps the spotlight on the PC's and avoids the "PC's as spectators" style problem.

Long-term allies should be 2 levels lower than the party (in line with those gained with the Leadership feat). This is good for things like when the prince sends his healer to assist the party on a months-long journey, or when the captain sends a pair of able-bodied seamen to help the PC's sail their yacht.

NPC's which accompany the party for only a session or two can be the same level, but again should have one job to do. This can address the lack of a specific skill or ability which the party needs to have at-level access to in the short term but which won't be a recurrent theme in the campaign overall, or make up for a missing PC who will return in a later session. This is good for a local guide who leads the party through the underwater caves, or a tragic hero whose purpose is to get himself killed while saving the party.

NPC's 2 levels higher than the party should be called away on urgent business after a session or less. As long as their function is sufficiently limited, this can give the players a sense that they have a "bad-ass" ally without them feeling upstaged. This might be a Gandalf-type character who leaves just as they are approaching the Mirkwood, or a professional vampire hunter who needs the party's help dealing with his non-undead enemies.

In any case, narrowing the NPC's function to a particular role (or even a particular skill) keeps them from growing into a Mary-Sue DMPC, and limiting the face-time inversely to the relative power level keeps them from becoming a crutch or a constant Deus Ex Machina. Most of these functions can be duplicated with magic items, but in my campaign I prefer to have a low ratio of self-sailing ships to sailors-for-hire, for example.

[Red Fel]

I do have another question though, if it keeps us on topic. Most people here have stated that DMPCs are bad, and I've experienced that disappointment myself. One way we managed a worm around was for the DM to create a character and have someone to play the character for them.

My question is thus; what about NPCs? I have NPCs that I would love to pop into the party to join them for an adventure, or become regular appearances in the story. They'll have an agenda completely separate from the PC even if they fight alongside them. I like the idea, but is this still no-no?

Several things.

First, the DMPC is a yellow flag, not a red one. DMPCs are not inherently bad, but they can easily lead to bad if used incautiously. So keep that in mind.

Second, the difference between a DMPC and an NPC is a hairbreadth. Some people argue, not unfairly, that all NPCs are DMPCs. But the general consensus seems to be that an NPC who adventures regularly with the PCs, occupying the role of PC and advancing alongside them, is a DMPC.

The best way to avoid issues is to run through a simple questionnaire. Is this NPC irreplaceable? Your ideal answer should be no. Nobody, PC or NPC, should have plot armor. Anybody with plot armor is going to create frustration. If the NPC is irreplaceable, figure out a way to change that. Does this NPC overshadow a PC? Your ideal answer should be no. The PCs should feel like heroes. If your NPC comes along and does what they do but better, it will cause hurt feelings. (Exception: If he later reveals his identity as a villain, having him perform better than a PC is a great way to get the PCs to hate him.) Does the NPC contribute anything? The answer should be a qualified yes. Yes, because otherwise you just have annoying dead weight following the PCs along. (Exception: When the PCs "adopt" an NPC, he can be completely useless and they'll stil love him.) Further, providing a useful out-of-combat role, particularly one the party is lacking (such as a band-aid, traveling merchant, or pokedex) means that he serves a purpose. Qualified, however, because if he contributes a vital function, you're stumbling towards "irreplaceable."
In an ideal world, the PCs don't need anyone traveling with them. They're the PCs. If you must have someone along with them, just make sure that the NPC stays out of the way. This is your world, but it's not your story; if you end up steering the adventure, you risk making the game all about you, and that way lies madness.

[TheIronGolem]

Seconding Red Fel's advice, with one addendum:

If a DMPC will fight alongside the party, consider handing off their control to one of the players during combat. This helps cut down on (though not eliminate completely) the chance that you'll bias things in favor of your character (whether consciously or not). More importantly, it will cut down on the chance that you'll be perceived as doing so.

[Psyren]

As DM you can make any arbitrary ruling you want, as long as it is consistent.

If you say "this is the way the world works," and it has always worked that way, and will always work that way, then you're good. If you make a ruling and a player says, "If I had known that, I would never have..." then you need to back and let him not have done that. Because he would have known, because the world always worked that way. And in the future, when one of your players uses your rule to crush your BBEG, you need to let him be crushed.

To expand on this, situational inconsistencies are fine if they can be justified. If you allow the players to teleport all over the place for instance, and then the Big Bad's final dungeon has an undispellable anti-teleport field up, this is justified because he wouldn't be the Big Bad if the PC's magic could stymie him trivially. And even "if I had known that, I would never have..." can be justified in this way, because not every trick, machination or defense used by the main villain is going to be readily apparent. Drop hints if you can, give them a chance to notice something is amiss, but don't be afraid to roll with it anyway if they fail to pick up on a key detail, and similarly don't be afraid to outright prevent a certain strategy if allowing it would result in a worse or more anticlimactic story.

[Rainshine]

As a note, maybe look at FATE. I enjoy the rather free-flow and amount of control it hands out to both DM and PC. Plus, I love tempting my players with points.

[DraconicVixen]

It still astounds me how active this forum is... I kept forgetting to respond he last two days, and now I feel bad with so many nice opinions!

I definitely don't plan on creating a NPC that will overshadow or spend endless amount of time with the PCs. I was thinking something along the lines of a character they run into every once and a while, or even end up fighting along side once or twice.

I really don't want to have a full character, as I'm still grasping most of the concepts in the book. Every session me and another player discuss the rules just for familiarity. We're both studying the book along side another just so we can understand what to do in certain situations - like yesterday, I finally learned how sunder worked. Occasionally too, we'll discuss how an event worked and how it didn't, and what could be improved... Sometimes ending in heated debates, but never in ending hatred.

I'm enjoying DMing so far. I kind of want to set up something similar to d20srd.org. They have a nice set up, I have the equipment... I'm just moving soon! I'm highly considering a forum based game. I'm just worried about how many posts I can make. As it stands, I can make two to three posts/day average (if I remember). That's the reason it took .e two days to respond to both of my current t open threads. I'll have more time starting next month, but still don't think that's fair for other players... That and I remember the anxiety of eagerly awaiting someone else's post. That was painful!