I think there are certain things that the DM should be empowered with, and others that they should not. They should, for example, be provided clear rules for how to make an encounter easy, normal or hard mode for their players; they should notbe encouraged to use these tools to crush their players. There should be good advice on how to handle magic items, PC death, no dead "branches" of story, etc. There should also be advice on not railroading, providing of improvisational metrics, handling of the powers of plot, pacing and story, and much more.
Basically, I think that attempting to neuter a DM is no where near as good as printing specific advice for how to run the kind of game your players will enjoy, by addressing the differences between players, game and playstyles, worlds, narrative and good plot and pacing and more; this not only allows DMs to properly be good DMs, it gives players who read the DMG ammunition of knowledge to use to identify and weed out badDMs.
Spot on! Espicially your second paragraph. The point of the whole game is for every one to be imagininative, not rules lawyered to death. Give solid advice for DMs, and point out that their job is one to create a fantastic world, facilitate a fun game, and let people have a good time. The rules should give good tips and ideas to help do this, such as encounter building tools etc.
At the same time, players should be told that at the end of the day, it is the DM who pourd hours of work into the setting, it is the DMs job to keep the game runing smoth and as fair as possibile, and so they have the final say in a ruling. If a player feels taht the dm is just awful, is unwilling to learn, or is compleatly unfair in his rulings, then the players should walk, and DMs should be made aware of that fact too, and be warned that just bullying, stifling creativity, railroading, or dictating how a player should play their character, or excessivly killing the party with encounters or traps that are obviously byond the party's ability, will quickly get you a game with 0 players.
I think there are certain things that the DM should be empowered with, and others that they should not. They should, for example, be provided clear rules for how to make an encounter easy, normal or hard mode for their players; they should notbe encouraged to use these tools to crush their players. There should be good advice on how to handle magic items, PC death, no dead "branches" of story, etc. There should also be advice on not railroading, providing of improvisational metrics, handling of the powers of plot, pacing and story, and much more.
Basically, I think that attempting to neuter a DM is no where near as good as printing specific advice for how to run the kind of game your players will enjoy, by addressing the differences between players, game and playstyles, worlds, narrative and good plot and pacing and more; this not only allows DMs to properly be good DMs, it gives players who read the DMG ammunition of knowledge to use to identify and weed out badDMs.
Spot on! Espicially your second paragraph. The point of the whole game is for every one to be imagininative, not rules lawyered to death. Give solid advice for DMs, and point out that their job is one to create a fantastic world, facilitate a fun game, and let people have a good time. The rules should give good tips and ideas to help do this, such as encounter building tools etc.
At the same time, players should be told that at the end of the day, it is the DM who pourd hours of work into the setting, it is the DMs job to keep the game runing smoth and as fair as possibile, and so they have the final say in a ruling. If a player feels taht the dm is just awful, is unwilling to learn, or is compleatly unfair in his rulings, then the players should walk, and DMs should be made aware of that fact too, and be warned that just bullying, stifling creativity, railroading, or dictating how a player should play their character, or excessivly killing the party with encounters or traps that are obviously byond the party's ability, will quickly get you a game with 0 players.
I agree with this, especially the part about the dm pouring hours of work into it. Though sometimes I think players need to learn to cut the dm some slack as long as they dont go overboard. For instance if its pretty clear that a dm has something important they want to do for a session I tolerate a little railroading for instance.
Players need to remember that the DM is also playing D&D to have fun as well and often is making a sacrifice for the players (In our group for instance we would all rather play than DM so we take turns in the role)
Yes, Bad DMs are bad for D&D... However, disempowering the DM doesn't stop Bad DMs from being bad (they're going to be bad regardless of what the rulebooks say)--it only hurts those that aren't Bad DMs.
I don't quite think this is true. I don't think it's as simple as "Bad DMs will be bad regardless". Truly Bad DMs, who will truly be bad regardless, are a small fraction of the total DM population, as are Good DMs, who will always be good regardless. Most DMs are in the middle. They can be influenced by the ruleset, for good or bad. There's a good bit of room for good rules, good guidelines and good advice to help out these DMs.
Oh, I thoroughly agree that there should be a solid rules base with guidelines and advice for DMs. To me, that's part of empowering DMs.
Playtest or get off the playtest boards.
---
I want justice for the voice that can't be heard Vindication for every suffering and hurt Let retribution hold dominion over earth --Nemesis, VNV Nation
I think there are certain things that the DM should be empowered with, and others that they should not. They should, for example, be provided clear rules for how to make an encounter easy, normal or hard mode for their players; they should notbe encouraged to use these tools to crush their players. There should be good advice on how to handle magic items, PC death, no dead "branches" of story, etc. There should also be advice on not railroading, providing of improvisational metrics, handling of the powers of plot, pacing and story, and much more.
Basically, I think that attempting to neuter a DM is no where near as good as printing specific advice for how to run the kind of game your players will enjoy, by addressing the differences between players, game and playstyles, worlds, narrative and good plot and pacing and more; this not only allows DMs to properly be good DMs, it gives players who read the DMG ammunition of knowledge to use to identify and weed out badDMs.
Agreed.
Playtest or get off the playtest boards.
---
I want justice for the voice that can't be heard Vindication for every suffering and hurt Let retribution hold dominion over earth --Nemesis, VNV Nation
When his sole and unbreachable defense is "Because I'm the DM, I said so, now go read Rule 0," that is DM Empowerment and is exactly the kind of behaviour I started this thread to rail against.
First off that isn't DM empowerment at all, DM empowerment is giving us tools we can use to say it without having to say it.
"Why didn't you see that trap with a nat 20, because the DC was so high you couldn't ever see it. maybe if the guy with the decent search check had rolled higher then he would have seen it." translates to "Because I'm the DM, I said so".
Giving the DM tools he can use to make anything within his imagination an in game reality is DM empowerment. You're just complaining about the fact that yes the DM gets to make everything up. Guess what. You gave him the right to do that by electing him to be the DM. If you think you can do a better job then by all means start up a game and be the DM.
My question for people is what were you doing to have this response given to you? Were you possibly trying to tell the DM exactly what he was supposed to do? The story and the game itself is the DM's character. The only time I have heard the I said so defense come up is after a player has taken undue time to challenge what is happening in the story by stating that the rules don't allow for it or that the rules state that the only way the DM could have gotten away with what was happening was if they had designed something incorrectly (fairly insulting by the way). At this point the DM has to say, "Yes I know this breaks the rules, or is in some way against the design suggestions, but it is happening regardlessly. I have invented something special for my players because I thought they would find it fun and engaging. Look at everyone else they just want to keep playing"
I'm not trying to say that I am entirely above being the player that has the complaints. Although I try to remember that sometimes the rules won't explain everything, and that sometimes it is the DM's prerogative to invent new things. I try not to let it get to the, "Because I'm the DM", point. If the DM can give me some suitable reasoning that my character or I the player can digest then I am fine with whatever is happening.
I'm also not trying to say that there are no "tyrannical" DM's. There have been too many people complaining about them for it to be a complete myth, or for all the people complaining to be bad players. I am just saying that sometimes the, "Because I said so", defense is all a good DM has left. It becomes the only argument we have left because a "tyrannical" player has tried to beat us into submission. The tyrannical player will quote rules and design principles for over an hour without realizing that none of it matters, and that clearly everyone else at the table just wants to move on and play the game. After a while of this when a singular player pipes up over the things happening in game the DM will be quicker and quicker to throw out the DM said so excuse to cut down on the argument because he knows the rest of the players want to play instead of being subjected to a debate for over an hour.
Do you think the DM should instead cave in, and coddle the upset player, and give the upset player everything they ask for, or should the DM continue on with the game they have designed? If the DM is willing to cave in and appease that one player why can't everyone else get exactly what they want too? At that point it stops being DnD and starts becoming a game of who can whine harder. We come back to the point of why can't I just look at the DM and say, "No that doesn't happen. We all instantly become epic level, we are all rich, we win DnD"?
You flat out asked the DM to do all the extra work to make everything up for you and to present a game to you. You aren't even paying this person to do this for you. The DM is doing it because he finds you to be a friend and he truly enjoys doing this for you guys. Then you have the audacity to complain when it isn't exactly what you wanted, and tell them to rewrite it on the spot so that your individually made happy while no one else seems to care. At this point why aren't you just DMing the game.
If this isn't what is happening and everyone at the table has a problem with the DM and what they are doing then you as a group should drop the DM and have someone else take up the mantle.
When a 35 year old man jumps up, points his finger and says, "No you can't do that, and your character wouldn't have done that in these circumstances anyway," what else do you call it but a tantrum? (that was about 10 years ago when I was about 32 for the record).
Max did not follow my lead, he forged his own path.
Well, that's the sort of DM who will be bad regardless. The only thing you can do with that sort is to not play with them.
When his sole and unbreachable defense is "Because I'm the DM, I said so . . ."
My question for people is what were you doing to have this response given to you?
That comes off in a very "blame the victim" light. I, and other players I know, have been on the receiving end of "I'm the DM, I said so" while not being a problem player. However, even when dealing with problem players, the DM should try to be calm and mature. If a DM is trying to curb the behavior of a problem player by responding with childishness and tantrums, then he is a bad DM. Even if a DM has a problem player that refuses to remedy their behavior, the answer is not to treat him badly; instead, you politely ask him to leave.
I'm not trying to say that I am entirely above being the player that has the complaints. Although I try to remember that sometimes the rules won't explain everything, and that sometimes it is the DM's prerogative to invent new things. I try not to let it get to the, "Because I'm the DM", point. If the DM can give me some suitable reasoning that my character or I the player can digest then I am fine with whatever is happening.
It has been my experience that "I'm the DM, I said so," when applied to a player that isn't being a problem player, often happens because the DM cannot conjure up (or explain) "some suitable reasoning."
I'm also not trying to say that there are no "tyrannical" DM's. There have been too many people complaining about them for it to be a complete myth, or for all the people complaining to be bad players. I am just saying that sometimes the, "Because I said so", defense is all a good DM has left. It becomes the only argument we have left because a "tyrannical" player has tried to beat us into submission. The tyrannical player will quote rules and design principles for over an hour without realizing that none of it matters, and that clearly everyone else at the table just wants to move on and play the game. After a while of this when a singular player pipes up over the things happening in game the DM will be quicker and quicker to throw out the DM said so excuse to cut down on the argument because he knows the rest of the players want to play instead of being subjected to a debate for over an hour.
Do you think the DM should instead cave in, and coddle the upset player, and give the upset player everything they ask for, or should the DM continue on with the game they have designed? If the DM is willing to cave in and appease that one player why can't everyone else get exactly what they want too? At that point it stops being DnD and starts becoming a game of who can whine harder. We come back to the point of why can't I just look at the DM and say, "No that doesn't happen. We all instantly become epic level, we are all rich, we win DnD"?
I would suggest, if a player is imposing a rules debate on a group that doesn't want it, that the DM tell the player that the DM's ruling will stand but that he will briefly hear the player's concerns/objections after the gaming session (or perhaps during a scheduled break), perhaps setting a 15-20 min time limit for the player to make his case. Whether the player convinces the DM or not, they have set a precedent to cut down on future arguments. If the the player cannot be civil to the DM while making his case, or is unable to accept not being able to convince the DM, then the DM should politely ask that player to find another group.
You flat out asked the DM to do all the extra work to make everything up for you and to present a game to you.
That's not really true. You're making an assumption that 1) the DM doesn't enjoy making up adventures and maps, and 2) the players have asked the DM to run the game. The first DM I ever had, who inducted me into the game with AD&D 2e, liked to DM. I didn't ask him to. He invited me to the game as a player and never asked me to DM. He was a good DM, until he moved away for college. Many of my subsequent DMs were bad on an almost epic level.
Then you have the audacity to complain when it isn't exactly what you wanted . . .
I have never seen a player complain for that reason. Every time I have seen a player complain, it was because 1) the rules were vague enough that a judgement call was required, or 2) a relied upon rule was purposefully ignored by the DM without giving a good reason why it was being ignored.
so why even play a fighter if you can play the paladin the exact same way behaviorally and get added power to boot. "Paladin" is about accepting better game-enhancing mechanics at the price of more rigid in game behavior.
Really? So it goes something like this?
Fighter: "I want to be a paladin." NPC: "Really?" Fighter: "Yes." NPC: "Very well." Starts reading from a holy book while still in-character "Do you accept having to choose and stick to the lawful good alignment, eventhough neither of us actually knows that it exists or what it is?" Fighter: "I do." NPC: "Do you reject good game balance because you accidentally rolled a high Charisma?" Fighter: "What?" NPC: "I don't know what it means either." Fighter: "Oh. Umm, ok I do." NPC: "In the name of all that is metagamey and broken, accept these better game enhancing mechanics." Fighter: "These what?" NPC: "Just get out there and try to fulfill a million different people's notion of good while not violating and part of any of them."
So the system is designed such that every single hit needs to be described to avoid confusion? Here's a scenario. The players are nudists, everybody in the world are nudists, it's not weird, it's totally normal in this land. They are naked and they fight drakes taking damage throughout, but healing up with surges. Later they meet the guy who raised the drakes.
Part 1: I didn't describe any of the hits. What does he see?
Part 2: Lets say I described the drakes as biting the players, yet they healed up. What does he see?
Sure, maybe the DM is ruling a fiat just to be a fiat. Otherwise you are forcing him to deal with and conjure an alternate outcome to something he may not be/ does not want to be prepared for. If your character came up with realistic engineering drawings for the space shuttle, I would not fault your DM for not indulging your well reasoned and thought out perversion of the game rules. The DM fiat exists partially from putting all of the onus on the DM to prevent sidelines to his campaign. After all, for Every effect the DM plans for, your continued monkey wrenches bog him down and make the game a whole lot more work for him. Some DM's have the ability to improvise And some just take it in stride. Others don't want the added work to try and reconcile effects outside of the norm and are within their right to deny them.
You can always DM....it's always easier on the other Side of the screen....
"If it's not a conjuration, how did the wizard
con·jure/ˈkänjər/Verb 1. Make (something) appear unexpectedly or seemingly from nowhere as if by magic.
it?" -anon
"Why don't you read fire·ball / fī(-ə)r-ˌbȯl/ and see if you can find the key word con.jure /'kən-ˈju̇r/ anywhere in it." -Maxperson
