Team Play or DM rules?

[Gamer Girl]

So this comes from a lot of people seeing broken stuff in the rules. In general, I see things broken as only as people want them to be broken. This is more of a way you play the game mentality. It never comes up much in my games, as I'm Old School, but I wonder how everyone else does it?

So vote:

1.The players can out vote the DM. The Dm is powerless vs the players and their interpretation of the rules. To use the Rope Trick example, the players will say they are immune to everything while in side it, and the DM will just nod and sit there.

2.The DM has final say. As DM, part of the job is to interpret the rules and say what is what in the world. And what the Dm says is final. To reuse the Rope Trick example I'd say that Supernatural abilities and Extra Dimensional feat enhanced spells as well as dispel magic can all effect the space.

I'm a type 2, of course. So vote....

[RndmNumGen]

My players and I are all type 2, but in general we're respectful of each other and don't try to use anything that is obviously broken.

[Gamer Girl]

My players and I are all type 2, but in general we're respectful of each other and don't try to use anything that is obviously broken.

For the most part I too game with people I'm at least friendly with, so it's not a problem.

I'm just wondering why so called broken things are a problem. My game physiology has always been 'DM rules', and all my players agree with that idea. When you sit down with a DM, they have final say on everything, that is the whole point of a DM.

[RndmNumGen]

Most of the broken things discussed on these forums are purely theoretical. Even if they work, they rarely find their way into an actual game. Many people just find it fun to discuss how these things work. For example, I know how to optimize a cleric so I can solo most encounters my level, but atm I'm playing a fairly unoptimized core-only monk - and he's doing well.

[FMArthur]

Always Type 2. If a DM is nice enough that they're okay with Type 1, I'd trust them to run Type 2 which is better for gameflow and leads to less argument and hurt feelings than mob rule. The only kind of DM I would really prefer Type 1 for is the kind of DM who would never consider it under any circumstances anyway.

[Mastikator]

Type 2, no exception. If I am to DM then I want final say. And I cede that when I play, since I know the amount of work it takes to DM.

[Totally Guy]

I prefer type 1 here. But that probably doesn't work so well for D&D.

[Ytaker]

If you have some sort of conflict, we can't resolve it for you. You should talk to your players.

Consider two situations I've heard of. A group absolutely hated rope trick because a past DM had gotten a large army together, had it dispel magic on them and then done a TPK. He was just trying to show them there were limits to what you could do with spells. They saw it as a punishment, and an obvious violation of the rules.

Another, a group used rope trick regularly, and all voiced support for it, but the non magic users weren't so keen on it as it meant that the magic users were overshadowing them. Unlimited spells means a lot of extra power.

You can do whatever you want to your players. You'll just be a bad DM if they hate it. It's worth seeing what your players want from rope trick, and if they have any worries about the way you interpret the rules.

[Comet]

If we're talking about Dungeon Masters and, as such, Dungeons and Dragons then type 2. In some other games, it might be type 1.

Often, though, it lands pretty squarely in the middle. For the most important things, the GM's word is the law. For more casual stuff the players are free to make it up as they wish so long as they are reasonable in their demands. And yeah, I've only played with good friends so the lines of responsibility and power tend to blur in a pretty happy way.

[dsmiles]

Definitely type 2. The GM should be the final arbiter of all rules. The GM creates the world, he/she should have final say on what happens, and how it happens, no exceptions.

[The Glyphstone]

Type 1 simply isn't functional in D&D. That's why Rule 0 exists.

For systems like Burning Wheel, I think, Type 1 is how it's designed to work, and it does it perfectly.

[Tengu_temp]

I don't see the first type working anywhere but some unusual indie games where the DM has a more limited role than in more standard games by definition. Only the worst kind of a DM abuses rule 0, is blind to compromise and uses the line "because I say so" (these words are a giveaway that your DM, or pretty much anyone in a position of authority, is a jackass), but the DM should still have the final word.

[Dsurion]

With my group, it wouldn't make a difference. No one bothers to ever do anything that needs a vote or game master arbitration. They want to play a game, not debate semantics.

Technically, the GM has final say, but only because no one ever bothers to question it, and indeed, they don't have much reason to do so, since we all pretty much agree on everything. That said, if he does something we don't like, we just boo him and throw popcorn at him (which we then clean up immediately, because no one's being an arse).

[Firechanter]

Then I'll be about the first in here to vote for Type 1, also for games like D&D. In the past, this has proven necessary sometimes when the DM misinterpreted rules or, worse, made up arbitrary and stupid houserules.

_Especially_ houserules (i.e. not individual calls but stuff that will apply all the time) have to be agreed on by _all_ players. The DM can't just change the rules as he sees fit.

My point is, the DM is just a human being and thus subject to error. There is no reason why you should accept something as sacrosanct that you know is wrong. Sometimes the DM is not the person who knows the system best.

In my group, it has become common practice to agree on houserules before the game begins. In the case of unforeseen differing perceptions, we don't actually "vote" but try to find a consensus.

[Kallisti]

For me, it's some of each. The DM technically has final authority--that's how the game works--but a DM who constantly overrules players will find himself without any. The DM's job is to make the game fun for everyone, himself included, but the players have to recognize that making the DM's job harder is not helping. So to use the rope trick example, it depends on how strongly the players feel about it and what the DM is comfortable running. If they just cannot bear to be without their invincible resting, then they should get it. If the DM isn't comfortable with that kind of game, someone else can take over. The players can't make the DM do anything, but he should be accommodating to some degree, because if the players never get anything they want they'll never have fun.

I think the recipe for a good game is players who are okay with losing and a DM who is okay with the players winning.

[dsmiles]

I think the recipe for a good game is players who are okay with losing and a DM who is okay with the players winning.

Well played.

[Samurai Jill]

I don't see the first type working anywhere but some unusual indie games where the DM has a more limited role than in more standard games by definition. Only the worst kind of a DM abuses rule 0, is blind to compromise and uses the line "because I say so" (these words are a giveaway that your DM, or pretty much anyone in a position of authority, is a jackass), but the DM should still have the final word.

I would contend that the issue isn't whether the GM abuses Rule 0 or not- the impact Rule 0 has on play stems from the fact that the GM can abuse Rule 0. A man threatening you with a knife isn't currently stabbing you, and indeed might only need to stab people quite rarely in his line of work, but that doesn't make the relationship a fair and reciprocal one. Even in the best-case scenario, it becomes a kind of Sword of Damocles suspended over the players' heads.

I would also contend that a GM who consistently strives for reasonable compromise with players on the subject of rule-disagreements has already, in effect, put aside Rule Zero and replaced it with a different rule- namely, 'compromise with players on the subject of rule-disagreements'. But really, if that game's rules are broken enough that this question comes up a lot, you may be better off finding a new system. Rune and Agon are RPG systems very much focused on blood-soaked hack'n'slash, but you'll find nary a mention of Rule Zero in their text. (Heck, Rune doesn't even have a GM.)

[valadil]

I wouldn't game with people who have to put this sort of thing to a vote. We discuss and compromise. With a few exceptions, everyone agrees on the rulings. I'd rather shut up and play than worry about who is in control.

[Pisha]

Type 2, with caveats.

1) If the GM is going to rule something that is completely outside the rules, the players need to know about it beforehand (or at least be able to change what they're doing when they find out.) If you cast Spell X, the GM has the right to say "In my world, Spell X doesn't work the same way" - but since the character lives in this world and has presumably cast the spell before, he should know what it does. If the spell doesn't do what the book says it does, the player should have the right to take it back and cast a different spell instead.

2) Both common sense and common courtesy need to be applied. I've made mistakes GM-ing and had players call me on it; sometimes, the answer is "Oops, you're so right. Here, let's change it." Sometimes the answer has to be "Oops, you're right... but the entire encounter is based around this interpretation. I'm going to rule that my interpretation is in effect for right now, so that we can get on with the game, but thank you for pointing it out and I'll do better in the future." (Or, if I'm feeling creative, "Gosh, you're right! It really shouldn't work that way! Hmm, I wonder what could cause something like that??" And then brainstorm like mad and/or hope that my players come up with an explanation for me )

3) If a player really does feel that the GM is making bad calls, a good GM should be open to talking to them and seriously thinking about their complaints.

Basically, this boils down to: the GM has to have final authority, because that's what a GM is for. (Otherwise you're just telling an "and then" story.) However, just because you CAN do something doesn't mean you SHOULD do something, so GMs should always be open to player feedback. If your decisions are making the game unfun, think about why you're making them.

[Weasel of Doom]

I'm slightly amused by the fact that there are two threads on this exact issue and they both appear in unanimous support of opposite sides of the topic, I've also found myself opposing both of them.

I suppose that is because I play a combination of 1 and 2. The GM is expected to change the rules whenever he feels it would make the game more enjoyable in some way but if the players are strongly opposed to these changes then he isn't able to go ahead with them. Similarly, if all the players want to introduce a house rule of some kind then they can. That said, the GM can in most cases overall the players during the session for the sake of keeping the game moving.

Perhaps allowing the players final say over the rules in this way might lead to a broken game in some groups but that hasn't been the case for us, nobody wants to play a broken game after all.

[bloodtide]

I suppose that is because I play a combination of 1 and 2. The GM is expected to change the rules whenever he feels it would make the game more enjoyable in some way but if the players are strongly opposed to these changes then he isn't able to go ahead with them. Similarly, if all the players want to introduce a house rule of some kind then they can. That said, the GM can in most cases overall the players during the session for the sake of keeping the game moving.

Perhaps allowing the players final say over the rules in this way might lead to a broken game in some groups but that hasn't been the case for us, nobody wants to play a broken game after all.

I just don't see how you can do 'both'. The players will always be 'opposed' to any 'rule changes' that effected them negativity. This is human nature. so your saying that everything, always works out for the best for the players, always.

And if all the players agree they can change a rule? That is just crazy. So all players 'agree' that they have unlimited gold as a new 'wealth by level' rule. And then they buy the world?


And how about little things....all five players vote that invisibility also gives you silence(but it's special silence so you can still cast spells and talk) and masks your sent too, so the DM just sits back and does nothing? After all, the players all agreed on this houserule, and they all think it's cool.

[Yora]

Type 1 results in way to many problems I wouldn't want to deal with as a GM. Fortunately, I never came in such a situation and players have always been very accepting when I ruled that something works this way or that. But I've never had any optimizers in my groups, so it wasn't any problem to them when a single thing didn't worked like they thought.

So I'm in favor of type 2, but that doesn't mean I shouldn't listen to what the players think about a rule. If they make a convincing point, why shouldn't I adopt that view? But when it's me against them, I expect them to accept the ruling I made. Which they usually do.

[Comet]

I just don't see how you can do 'both'. The players will always be 'opposed' to any 'rule changes' that effected them negativity. This is human nature. so your saying that everything, always works out for the best for the players, always.

And if all the players agree they can change a rule? That is just crazy. So all players 'agree' that they have unlimited gold as a new 'wealth by level' rule. And then they buy the world?


And how about little things....all five players vote that invisibility also gives you silence(but it's special silence so you can still cast spells and talk) and masks your sent too, so the DM just sits back and does nothing? After all, the players all agreed on this houserule, and they all think it's cool.

This is why you only play with people who you trust to place a good story and a good time before any personal power fantasies or 'winning' a game that doesn't even have any sort of victory conditions written in!

Negative experiences for the characters can still be fun for the players. It's okay to lose every now and then. You are not your character, you are not trying to win. And so on, I'm sure you get the point.

If all the players agree that having unlimited gold will make the game more fun for everyone and the story more interesting then, sure, I'm all for it. After some persuasion and talking, mind, but in the end I'll gladly bend a bit if all the players have such a strong vision about what kind of game they want to play.

[bloodtide]

If all the players agree that having unlimited gold will make the game more fun for everyone and the story more interesting then, sure, I'm all for it. After some persuasion and talking, mind, but in the end I'll gladly bend a bit if all the players have such a strong vision about what kind of game they want to play.

This only makes sense to me for story things, not the rules. If the players have story ideas, that is always great. But when it comes to the rules, players are not so great.

Guess I'm just glad I have good players and this never comes up. But then all my players agree that the 'DM Rules' anyway(and I'm always DM).

[Tyndmyr]

1.The players can out vote the DM. The Dm is powerless vs the players and their interpretation of the rules. To use the Rope Trick example, the players will say they are immune to everything while in side it, and the DM will just nod and sit there.

2.The DM has final say. As DM, part of the job is to interpret the rules and say what is what in the world. And what the Dm says is final. To reuse the Rope Trick example I'd say that Supernatural abilities and Extra Dimensional feat enhanced spells as well as dispel magic can all effect the space.

I'm a type 2, of course. So vote....

False dichotomy. And also, biased toward 2.

The DM is not powerless just because the players also have a say. A consensus is arrived at via discussion, not merely a vote.

I just don't see how you can do 'both'. The players will always be 'opposed' to any 'rule changes' that effected them negativity. This is human nature. so your saying that everything, always works out for the best for the players, always.

This is silly tippyverse logic. Not everyone always votes for more power at the price of everything else.

If everyone at your table would, if given the option, immediately vote to "win D&D forever", then you should probably find a different table, with mature players who understand that playing the game is the point of being there.

[Zhalath]

I have a feeling I've been here before...

I play Type 2 with my players, though I'm always willing to listen to them if they have an argument to make, so some Type 1. That's probably the best system, a hybrid.

[Toofey]

Wait, Players have opinions?!

Ummm no. #2. clearly.

In fact I like #3, The DM rules with an iron fist and the players are lucky if I listen to what they have to say about the rules, or the spells.


(although in fairness, I make notes to the common spells changing the ones I thought were broken, and disallowing the ones that couldn't be fixed which I gave to the players at the outset, so a lot of the 'broken' problems with spells at least are not an issue in the first place)

[Friv]

I feel like if my group is in a situation where we have to rule between those two options, there is a larger problem at work.

The unspoken rule at my tables leans more towards #2 than #1, in that the GM has the final say, but introducing houserules or rulings without player input isn't something we do. I lean that way as both a GM and a player, because if I don't trust my GM to be making fair rulings, I really have better things to do with my time. We can sit down and play a board game if we're going to be adversarial.

[randomhero00]

2 of course.

[Kallisti]

Well played.

In my experience, the vast majority of gaming conflicts crop up from not having this combo. Most "bad DMs" are the ones who are trying to preserve an original idea from change wrought by the players, and at least in my personal experience most "bad players" are ones unwilling to accept something not going their way.

Best game I was ever in was one where the ST (we were playing Changeling) found watching us derail his plans interesting and where the players enjoyed new and interesting complications.

If everyone at your table would, if given the option, immediately vote to "win D&D forever", then you should probably find a different table, with mature players who understand that playing the game is the point of being there.

I gave my players this option once. They each got a wish. Not a Wish, a wish. No limits, no restrictions, nothing. One asked what'd happen if he wished to be the DM. I offered him my seat, and asked if I could play his character until I got one genned.

None of them abused it. One asked for Hide in Plain Sight as an (Ex) ability. One asked for a continuous Magic Circle Against Evil. One asked for a "get out of death free" card. The munchkin-player who enjoyed headache-inducing Shapechange abuse druids in parties that included straight-up monks? Asked for 20,000 gp to buy the cool magic item he'd been lusting after for three sessions.

It was pretty awesome, actually.