Help phrasing a DM rule

[kyoryu]

I really like the "presume good faith" phrasing.

If you presume good faith, that means that you assume that the players do, in fact, think that what they're suggesting is reasonable. As such, it's your job to look for the reasonableness. It might not be there, but that's generally going to be a matter of either hidden information (in which case you can play that out) or misaligned assumptions (which should get ironed out).

I'd probably codify it as such:

Presume Good Faith

Assume that players are acting in good faith. As such, an action that they propose should be considered reasonable by default, providing that everybody is aligned on the game and style. However, sometimes it's not. When a player wants to do something that sounds unreasonable, go through these steps:

1. Listen to the proposed action or solution. Presume it is reasonable. Unless there is a strong reason not to allow it, play it out.
2. If it is not reasonable due to information that the character has access to, inform the player of this information. They may counter with other points - listen to them, consider them, and ask the rest of the group for their input. Make a call, move on, and discuss later if necessary.
3. If it is not reasonable due to information that the character does not have access to, but would be reasonable otherwise, play it out.
4. If it would be reasonable if some criteria were met, inform the player/character of this criteria, as best as they would be able to determine. Again, be willing to listen to their points as well as the rest of the table, but make a decision quickly and table for later discussion if necessary.
5. If it is not reasonable due to not fitting the tone or assumptions of the game, make a call in the moment. Ask the rest of the table what they think. Table the discussion for later, and try to get on the same page.
6. If it is truly unreasonable without fitting into any of these categories, then it may be a matter of bad faith and looking for advantage rather than truly doing what is reasonable in the moment. If so, again, consult the table and make a ruling, and have a discussion with the player later about what is and is not appropriate.

While the GM has the final word, in general listening to the table is a good idea. If the entire table things something is reasonable, it's probably best to presume that it is.

Here's some examples:

1.
Player: "I want to climb the wall!"
GM: "Well, it's a granite wall, but sure, there could be enough grabholds and cracks to climb it. Give me a roll."

2.
Player: "I want to climb the wall!"
GM: "It's too slick to climb, there's nothing to get a rope around up top, and the material is too hard to put any kind of spikes into. You're not going to be able to climb this wall. Kinda weird that it's here, though..."

3.
Player: "I want use my telepathy to read Bill's mind!"
GM: "Sure. You start to reach out with your mind, but find some kind of mental wall. Weird."

4.
Player: "I want to climb the wall!"
GM: "It's too slick to climb by hand... but you might be able to get a rope over the top, or some spikes in the wall. Then you could probably make it."

5.
Player: "I want to swing on the chandelier and attack!"
GM: "That would work for a swashbuckling, cinematic game, but I thought we were going for a grittier game? What does everyone else thing?"

6.
Player: "I want to throw a dagger at him, bouncing it off of two walls so it hits him even though he's around a corner!"
GM: "No, I really don't think that works in this case, and I'm not sure why you would. Let's just say no for now and table this for later."

[FrogInATopHat]

Having encountered numerous times the ridiculous things that players think in good faith is reasonable, this doesn't seem like a good baseline for judgement to me.

Yeah, but your nightmares in this regard are the stuff of legend.

[kyoryu]

Having encountered numerous times the ridiculous things that players think in good faith is reasonable, this doesn't seem like a good baseline for judgement to me.

I said you start there... not that you end there....

But seriously, that's where as a GM you tell them what is the likely result of the actions or plans, so that they can learn how your world works. A lot of times players come from other tables that operate under very different basic assumptions. Their proposed actions probably are reasonable in the last game they played.

[Tanarii]

I said you start there... not that you end there....

But seriously, that's where as a GM you tell them what is the likely result of the actions or plans, so that they can learn how your world works. A lot of times players come from other tables that operate under very different basic assumptions. Their proposed actions probably are reasonable in the last game they played.

Agree, it's all about assumptions. IMX it's players that come from some kinds of anime that break my personal assumptions. And I recall player assumptions going wild after Crouching Tiger made a big splash ...

To mangle the words of The Architect, there are levels of wushu I am prepared to accept.

But IMC legolas would have been out of luck when he tried to run up falling stones. Changing the way gravity and time work to pull that off was fine and dandy and still utter ridiculous for the film. It's not making it into my games. Of course, elves can't walk on snow IMC either, so clearly different definitions of "elf" apply between Jackson and me.

[kyoryu]

Agree, it's all about assumptions. IMX it's players that come from some kinds of anime that break my personal assumptions. And I recall player assumptions going wild after Crouching Tiger made a big splash ...

To mangle the words of The Architect, there are levels of wushu I am prepared to accept.

But IMC legolas would have been out of luck when he tried to run up falling stones. Changing the way gravity and time work to pull that off was fine and dandy and still utter ridiculous for the film. It's not making it into my games. Of course, elves can't walk on snow IMC either, so clearly different definitions of "elf" apply between Jackson and me.

For sure - and I'd say that's still acting in good faith. And that's where same-paging is a necessary process. I think that was point #5 or so in my list ;)

In this case it's a symptom of a deeper problem that will likely rear its head in other places in the future. I know you know this, it's just such a common problem and disrupts so many games :(

[neceros]

"Yes, and..." or "no, but..."

It's a story. Be fluid.

[Tanarii]

"Yes, and..." or "no, but..."

Except when it's just Yes or No.

It's a story. Be fluid.

Except when it's playing a character in a fantasy environment.

Edit: coming back to this, #2 rule for DMs should be "don't treat your campaign like a story".

[Devils_Advocate]

I'm trying to write a set of reminders for myself, and others like me, that remind me (and them) what the potential pitfalls of DM judgment are.

Does this list of reminders accompany an explanation of the principles that they're meant to be reminders of? If they're meant to work in conjunction with numerous unstated assumptions, it strikes me as almost inevitable that others with other assumptions will interpret them differently than you do, possibly even leading them to DM in ways that are in direct opposition to your preferred methods.

... which might be fine? Like, to a certain extent, one can expect that other DMs have their own senses of how they want to run things and what works for their groups, and they can judge for themselves whether your suggestions as interpreted by them facilitate or hinder what they're trying to accomplish. So, probably, it's only really an issue if you're not sharing some valuable and non-obvious insight.

Regardless, your list will probably be read by others unlike you in various ways, and you might want to consider the impact on them as well. That's kind of what my earlier "DM-dependent" response was getting at.

[Xervous]

Edit: coming back to this, #2 rule for DMs should be "don't treat your campaign like a story".

And we all know how choose your own adventures turn out if the choices only influence the explosion color at the end.

[Tanarii]

And we all know how choose your own adventures turn out if the choices only influence the explosion color at the end.

hahaha well said!

Choose your own adventure is great if that's what you signed up for. But very few players have that in mind, and DMs treating their games like a story have just signed them up for it.

It's a sidebar though, IIRC Jay R already has multiple rules that address railroading in one form or another.

[kyoryu]

Choose your own adventure is great if that's what you signed up for. But very few players have that in mind, and DMs treating their games like a story have just signed them up for it.

It's a sidebar though, IIRC Jay R already has multiple rules that address railroading in one form or another.

(To be fair, there's a number of games that are aimed at doing "story-like" stuff without railroading. But that's tangenting the tangent. "The campaign is not your novel" is how I'd likely phrase that, but even that has to acknowledge that some people like that style of play)

[Jay R]

"Yes, and..." or "no, but..."

It's a story. Be fluid.

That has to be balanced with "It's a game. Stay within the rules." This is actually pretty much what this rule is for. It's a direct rebuttal to the idea that the Rule of Cool means that rules and reasonable limits shouldn't apply.

Does this list of reminders accompany an explanation of the principles that they're meant to be reminders of?

There's nothing but the rules, but that's part of what the sub-rules are for -- to provide additional explanation or context.

Besides, a reminder doesn't require that. When my wife reminds me of my doctor's appointment, she doesn't have to explain why I'm going to the doctor.

And fundamentally, this is the principle: Support player ideas that are cool, creative, imaginative, and reasonable. That does not mean supporting ideas that are cool, creative, imaginative, and unreasonable.

If they're meant to work in conjunction with numerous unstated assumptions, it strikes me as almost inevitable that others with other assumptions will interpret them differently than you do, possibly even leading them to DM in ways that are in direct opposition to your preferred methods.

If their gaming philosophy is in direct opposition to mine, then they should interpret things differently than I do. I'm doing what entertains my friends. They should do what entertains their friends. One of my rules includes the following:

a. Not all games are alike, and that's fine. Not all players want the same things out of a game, and that's fine.
b. Avoid having players who won't like the kind of game you're running. And then run a game your players will enjoy.

... which might be fine? Like, to a certain extent, one can expect that other DMs have their own senses of how they want to run things and what works for their groups, and they can judge for themselves whether your suggestions as interpreted by them facilitate or hinder what they're trying to accomplish. So, probably, it's only really an issue if you're not sharing some valuable and non-obvious insight.

Well, I think it is valuable and sometimes non-obvious insight. But it can't help DMs who don't share my approach. I'm quite capable of arguing in favor of my viewpoint, but if I did, it wouldn't be in a list of rules.

Regardless, your list will probably be read by others unlike you in various ways, and you might want to consider the impact on them as well. That's kind of what my earlier "DM-dependent" response was getting at.

You make an excellent point. I wrote them for my own benefit, but once I posted them here, they became a potential influence on other DMs.

For my purpose, they are reminders to stay true to the principles I already believe in. I'm not trying to convince myself to do this, but to remind myself.

[And really, a large part of it was to work my principles out in the first place. Writing is a formal process of putting thoughts in a meaningful order.]

For others, I can't have that goal. No simple set of rules will change the mind of a DM who wants the Rule of Cool to be a doorway to unreal actions that the rules don't support. If their campaign isn't intended to simulate, then the rules for my simulation simply don't apply.

I will re-think this, but at present, I'm going to stick to my goal of writing something fun to read that reminds me of what I already intend to do. If that matches other DMs' approach, and is useful for others, then great! If not, no amount of explanation will change what they believe in -- nor should it.

[DwarfFighter]

My suggested edit:

[INDENT]32. Support player ideas that are cool, creative, and imaginative. Do not support unreasonable ideas.

a. The "Rule of Cool" must always be weighed against the "Rule of Don’t Be Ridiculous".

But who is the audience for this text? Who is enforcing these rules?

-DF

[kyoryu]

My suggested edit:

[INDENT]32. Support player ideas that are cool, creative, and imaginative. Do not support unreasonable ideas.

a. The "Rule of Cool" must always be weighed against the "Rule of Don’t Be Ridiculous".

But who is the audience for this text? Who is enforcing these rules?

-DF

Practically speaking, I've had best results of "the GM, with table support."

Scenario A
Player A: "I do the thing!"
GM: "Yeah, okay, hadn't really considered that but sure, why not."

Scenario B
Player A: "I do the thing!"
GM: "You can't just 'do' the thing. You need to have meet the following gear/situational/etc. requirements first."
Player A: "Okay, cool."

Scenario C
Player A: "I do the thing!"
GM: "You try to do the thing, but fail because of this thing you discover in the process of trying"

Scenario D
Player A: "I do the thing!"
GM: "No, that doesn't make sense as something you can do."
Player A: "Okay, I do the other thing!"

Scenario E
Player A: "I do the thing!"
GM: "No, that doesn't make sense as something you can do."
Player A: "No, that totally makes sense!"
GM: "Rest of table, what do you think?".
Players B-D: "Sure, it seems reasonable" or "I think he has a point" (and go from there)

Scenario F (to be used sparingly)
Player A: "I do the thing!"
GM: "No, that doesn't make sense as something you can do."
Player A: "No, that totally makes sense!"
GM: "No, it really really doesn't make sense because of things. Sorry."

[dps]

Presume good faith

Horrible advice for almost any situation.

And in a gaming context, useless, because even if your players are acting in good faith, it doesn't matter unless you also presume that they aren't idiots, which is also not a good basis upon which to proceed.

[Tanarii]

Horrible advice for almost any situation.

Depends. Is "I'm only trying to abuse the rules for an advantage" good faith or bad faith?

[kyoryu]

Horrible advice for almost any situation.

No, it's great advice.

Presume good faith until you have reason to suspect otherwise.

And in a gaming context, useless, because even if your players are acting in good faith, it doesn't matter unless you also presume that they aren't idiots, which is also not a good basis upon which to proceed.

I'd say this is terrible advice.

Most people aren't idiots. What does happen is that they're working from a different set of assumptions. And under their assumptions, their ideas make sense. But under your assumptions, they're terrible ideas.

That's the point of presuming good faith (it should be "good faith and intelligence"). Until you have evidence otherwise, presume that players are suggesting ideas because they think they make sense, based on the knowledge and presumptions that they make. And be willing to entertain those plans, and look for ways that they could make sense, rather than casually disregarding them because they don't completely align with your presumptions.

Edit: I wrote this a bit ago: https://www.reddit.com/r/rpg/comment...rs_arent_dumb/

Depends. Is "I'm only trying to abuse the rules for an advantage" good faith or bad faith?

I'd say "good faith" in most cases is "this is what seems like a reasonable plan to me". In most cases, "if I do this, I can abuse a rules loophole" doesn't qualify - though at some tables it does.

At the minimum, if that's not good faith at your table, recognize that someone is doing that, tell them to knock it off, and then proceed as normal, with an extra eye out for shenanigans.

[Jay R]

I don’t have either the wisdom or the authority to accurately discern my friends’ motives. As Queen Elizabeth I said, "I have no desire to make windows into men's souls."

I can judge their actions. Those are right there in front of me. But I’m not going to try to guess whether their actions are “good faith” or “bad faith”. I’m not wise enough to do it, and it has no effect on my ruling anyway. Besides, most people’s motive are confused, subconscious, and complicated. Psychiatrists with years of training take months of therapy to figure them out, and they still always know that their current conclusions are tentative and incomplete.

And guessing wrong is far more harmful than guessing right is helpful.

Suppose, for example, that a player in a 3.5e game is trying to make an Illusion (figment) spell cause actual damage. I’m the DM; I have to make a ruling.

He could be doing it because:
A. He just doesn’t know the rule,
B. He generally knows the rule but just forgot, or got confused,
C. He doesn’t know the rule, and vaguely believes that pushing for the best possible ruling is what playing the game is,
D. He knows the rules and is deliberately flouting it to try to get an unfair advantage,
E. He’s used to AD&D, and believes that Major Image is the same as Improved Phantasmal Force.

Only 1½ of these is bad faith. [The ½ is C, and that’s all too common in D&D.] But my ruling in all five cases would be exactly the same. “No, unfortunately, it doesn’t work that way. Could somebody look up the rule on figments and show it to John? Thanks, Richard. Now, Diane, your initiative is next. What does Sophia do?”

I’m not trying to punish my friend for bad faith; I’m trying to run a fair, reasonable, fun game

I will go further:

If I know, for an absolute fact, that the player is acting in bad faith, I will still phrase my ruling as if he is simply mistaken in good faith. That’s the best way to help him start playing fairly if he wants to but was momentarily tempted, and that’s also the best way to make my ruling stick if he is adamantly trying to cheat – because if I act like he’s trying to play fairly, he can’t contradict me.

But in any case, I can’t guess what’s in his heart, and I can’t “punish” him in any case. All I can do is try to run the game with consistency and fairness.

So the “Rule of Cool” must always be subordinate to the “Rule of Don’t Be Ridiculous.”

By the way, I think this is a great discussion. It helps all of us to carefully work our way through our ideas in print.

[kyoryu]

So the “Rule of Cool” must always be subordinate to the “Rule of Don’t Be Ridiculous.”

Absolutely.

And as I pointed out in that link, usually the best thing to do is to assume there's a misconception or gap in assumptions (or knowledge) and address the gap.

[Jay R]

Absolutely.

And as I pointed out in that link, usually the best thing to do is to assume there's a misconception or gap in assumptions (or knowledge) and address the gap.

Makes sense. Nicely written, by the way.

The iconic story of the gazebo is the story of a poor DM. Once it became clear that Eric didn't know what a gazebo is, the DM should tell him -- because the PC isn't hearing a word he doesn't know; he's looking at a wooden structure.

"Eric, a gazebo not a monster; it's just a roofed structure with an open view. Your character is looking at a wooden building."

Otherwise, the character has the PC do something that no actual adventurer standing in that location and looking at the gazebo would do.

This gets back to one of my other rules:

b. PCs should not roll for common or obvious knowledge. If the world has three moons, then they don't have to roll to remember it. They've lived under that sky all their life; they don't even have the idea of a world with only one moon.

Similarly, they know if the king puts people to death for insulting him, and when they see a wooden roofed structure with an open view, they know that it isn't a monster -- even if the player doesn't know what it's called.