PDA

View Full Version : Differences in DMing philosophies...



Albonor
2008-05-18, 07:48 AM
Hi,

My friend and I have a very different approach when it comes to DMing, especially in DnD. He recently started to mention more and more often how I should have done things another way, etc. It IS starting to get annoying but I understand that: yes, every DM screws up littlie things sometime (I've been DMing for 13 years...) and I should always be open to constructive criticism and yes, I should watch out for an attitude problem from my part because after all, I can make rock falls and he can't.

He believes that the DM is much like a storyteller, that must cheat and improvise if needed to make sure the PCs don't die and that to story you imagine is told.

I believe the DM must work on a setting, on most of the details of the important npcs and their plans so that he becomes another player around the table who manages the wolrd while the players manages one of the main character of the story that we all write as a group.

I think that if you simply want a story told, you write a book. 1h every night for a year and you take notes on the bus and on the subway. Not assured to be good but it will be done.

So any thought? Am I wrong? I know it does depend on style but I think his interpretation only gives an illusion of power on the story to the player...

Tengu
2008-05-18, 07:52 AM
If players like the story and you're subtle enough that they don't see the railroads, then there's nothing bad in running it the way your friend does. An awesome game that happened because the DM decided that no matter which path the players take, they will find the ruined castle on the way, is much better than freeform.

happyturtle
2008-05-18, 07:58 AM
My style is closer to your friend's style than yours, but your style is fine too. The only rule to follow is: Are you AND your players having fun?


If people aren't having fun and your friend is trying to help, then you should probably try and make some changes before the group disintegrates.

However, if everyone is having fun, then your friend needs to lay off the criticism. If he wants a storytelling improv heavy game, he should run one, not backseat run yours.

Starsinger
2008-05-18, 08:41 AM
I tend to DM in the middle. There's a story that I'm trying to tell, but the PCs alter the story. Their actions change where the story is going, so it feels very alive and growing. It's a joint effort but I find it much nicer than sandbox DMing.

UglyPanda
2008-05-18, 09:57 AM
I dislike railroading highly. I know some people like it, and fine with it, but I've had too many DMs that had fun forcing people back on the tracks. It even screwed up how my group thought because every suggestion, no matter how stupid, became "But Thou Must (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/ButThouMust)". Quite a few DMs do it because they want to tell "a story", but I've found that every intelligent person has a story of their own, whether it be fanfic or novel. The players themselves are telling a story. They're telling the story of their characters, how they became (champions/villains) of great (virtue/power) and (saved/destroyed) a nation. Railroading screws that up for them and takes away the player's ability to write a story. Of course, if the DM's story and the player's story coincide, then everyone's happy. If they don't, you get pissed-off players who try to find new ways to destroy the Inescapable McGuffin (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/TheCatCameBack).

Raum
2008-05-18, 11:17 AM
He believes that the DM is much like a storyteller, that must cheat and improvise if needed to make sure the PCs don't die and that to story you imagine is told.

I believe the DM must work on a setting, on most of the details of the important npcs and their plans so that he becomes another player around the table who manages the wolrd while the players manages one of the main character of the story that we all write as a group.

I think that if you simply want a story told, you write a book. 1h every night for a year and you take notes on the bus and on the subway. Not assured to be good but it will be done.

So any thought? Am I wrong? I know it does depend on style but I think his interpretation only gives an illusion of power on the story to the player...First, read a certain writer's opinion in my signature. Second, my opinion is games have meaningful choices made by players. Those choices are what make it a game rather than semi-scripted improv.

Now ignore both opinions and talk to your players. What do they want? Not just one, but all of them. But also remember it should be fun for you as well as the players. If your gaming styles are too different you may be better off gaming with different groups.

Yahzi
2008-05-18, 12:03 PM
My friend and I have a very different approach when it comes to DMing,
Your friend is a deranged mutant. You are an avatar of pure righteousness.

Does that help?

:smallbiggrin:

I happen to agree with you that versimilitude is necessary; however, the amount required differs from person to person and game to game. As others have said, a game is about making choices. It's ok for the DM to limit those choices, as long as everybody still enjoys the game. In fact, it is the process of limiting choices that makes the game fun (if your character could do anything just by saying it, the game would soon become boring).

Picking the right amount of choices is an art, and it depends on your audience. You can't leave everything up to them, and you can't leave nothing up to them.


He believes that the DM is much like a storyteller, that must cheat and improvise if needed to make sure the PCs don't die and that to story you imagine is told.
Tell him if he doesn't want his character to die, he should make better choices and roll better dice. :smallbiggrin:

Gralamin
2008-05-18, 12:31 PM
Hi,

My friend and I have a very different approach when it comes to DMing, especially in DnD. He recently started to mention more and more often how I should have done things another way, etc. It IS starting to get annoying but I understand that: yes, every DM screws up littlie things sometime (I've been DMing for 13 years...) and I should always be open to constructive criticism and yes, I should watch out for an attitude problem from my part because after all, I can make rock falls and he can't.

Rocks fall should only be used to stop a player from making another have no fun. For example, if you set out in the rules no backstabbing the party due to concerns raised out of game by some players, then rocks fall can be used to punish a player who choses to ignore the rules put in place to ensure others fun.


He believes that the DM is much like a storyteller, that must cheat and improvise if needed to make sure the PCs don't die and that to story you imagine is told.
Wow, sounds like me and one of my friends. He believes DMs should cheat (often rolling three dice per attack behind his screen, and other such things). I beleive that its only necessary when it risks ruining the fun of the entire table.


I believe the DM must work on a setting, on most of the details of the important npcs and their plans so that he becomes another player around the table who manages the wolrd while the players manages one of the main character of the story that we all write as a group.

I think that if you simply want a story told, you write a book. 1h every night for a year and you take notes on the bus and on the subway. Not assured to be good but it will be done.

So any thought? Am I wrong? I know it does depend on style but I think his interpretation only gives an illusion of power on the story to the player...

You are right, the game is collaborative story telling game. A player must have power in order to help in telling the story, and the powers they have is detailed in the rules. This is why all players are supposed to follow the rules, unless the entire group can have more fun not following them. As long as you remember that fun is the goal, above all else, and you'll be fine.

xPANCAKEx
2008-05-18, 12:38 PM
if you pull the DM fiat all the time to keep PCs alive it will become very unsatisfying, very quickly

satisfaction = "i faced a challenge, and i beat it on my own" not "i faced a challenge, would have failed, but the guy in charge let me off this time... oh and last week too"

Nohwl
2008-05-18, 01:26 PM
the dm should try to keep the players alive, but only if its a lucky crit or something like that. if the pcs are dying because of poor choices made by them, then its their own fault.

Tsotha-lanti
2008-05-18, 05:15 PM
I believe the DM must work on a setting, on most of the details of the important npcs and their plans so that he becomes another player around the table who manages the wolrd while the players manages one of the main character of the story that we all write as a group.

You are right, and seem to know precisely what being a GM/DM/Ref is about. It is explicitly not about telling a story to your players. (Although you can do that on the side, if you're good. Certain games and genres also encourage it - Fading Suns, for instance, where the style is suppose to be that of a morality play, a Greek tragedy, or the like.)

Of course, as to player deaths specifically, I find that it's generally not a good idea to cause them. If the players choose to do something really stupid or something really heroic (often the same thing) that would lead to death, that's fine. But I find random deaths, in most games/genres, don't work out too well - they disrupt storylines, they cut short long character development, they set the player's emotional involvement in the campaign and plot back to 0, and so on.

As a rule, I will fudge the dice in the PCs' favor to keep them just barely alive rather than letting them die only because of the dice. I've been doing it since the start, oddly enough.

I can actually recall the first instance. We were playing the adventure out of the GM's book for RuneQuest 3E, with the duck bandit. The giant spider killed both of the PCs, but I lied about my dice rolls - clumsily, even - and they survived, just with awful scars for the experience. I guess it balanced out the fact that I punished their exploitation of naturally having read the freaking adventure from the GM book - turned out the duck's "dummies" were real bandits with crossbows after all...

Conversely, I won't bother with dice when a story-related death is obvious and dramatic. "You block the doorway against the five hundred ogres all on your own to buy your friends time to flee? Okay, they kill you, but by then the rest of the party are far away."

Edit: I should probably add that in D&D, random deaths are mostly part and parcel of the genre, in my opinion. Then again, most of our D&D games aren't that story- or character-driven anyway. In a game like RuneQuest, where the story is all about the characters' relationship with their community and how they shape it, I don't find random deaths very useful - but then again, they don't tend to happen, since most of our PCs can only be killed by heroes of equal level, or pretty mighty monsters...