My name is Kitton and I am advocating poor DM behavior and blaming the players for having the problem not the system for causing it.
Fixed that for you.
So apparently, letting a whiny player argue the game to a grinding halt because his other GM may or may not have interpreted the rules in a different fashion, or allowed him [possibly in a one-off manner] to do something that my not apply now, as opposed to keeping the game flowing with quick judgement calls, and keeping control over the more self-entitled players, is the system's fault, and a good GM would let himself get trampled no matter what that does to the campaign or other players.
Instead, ya know of making a judgement now with the authority of being the one running the bloody game, shutting up the whiner if its bad enough a local manchild needs a time-out or punishment without the threats exiting the game [affecting his character, not his face met by your chair], and discussing things in a civilised manner after the game when tensions have cooled off, which is what I was suggesting.
Boy have we ever been doing it wrong. I should totally put my head under our munchkin's boot.
I'm completely with you on this. Quite frankly, I don't give a rat's nethers what another DM let someone do. If I don't think it flies at my table, it doesn't fly. And if a player is going to be disruptive about it, I don't need him at my table either, and he's free to go find another group. My current general gaming group has 17 people in it, and that's not counting other folks that will occasionally come play. Now, we don't have all 17 in the same game (unless they all want to LARP maybe; no tabletop game can comfortably handle that many bodies I don't think), but it does mean that I don't have to go around begging for players. Not everyone has that situation, and I understand that, but at least in my case, I have no problem doing that. Not that I'd have a problem anyway - I'd rather have no game than a game with bad players in it.
That all said, I am not the sort of DM that tells his players "no" all the time. I'm a big proponent of the "yes, and..." game. I will tell them no on occasion, when the situation calls for it, but those are fairly rare.
For those confused on how DDN's modular rules might work, this may provide some insight: http://www.tor.com/blogs/2012/11/the-world-of-darkness-shines-when-it-abandons-canon
@mikemearls: Uhhh... do you really not see all the 3e/4e that's basically the entire core system?
Quoted from the DM guidelines: "The Rules aren't in charge. You, the DM, are the one in charge of the game." When I join a game I hold no reservations that I am entitled to do anything that some other dude let me do in his totally different game. I believe each game has its own, unique set of parameters set by the DM. To get pissed off that I cant do something not clearly defined anyway seems absurd to me! I'm glad this thread was starte because I honestly had no idea this was ever an issue anywhere. I don't agree with the response's delivery in the form of flaming and targeted attacks against excessive hand-waiving DMs, but you can't have everything. ...just my 2cp
The issues in question have more to do with the following the general entitlement on the part of players:
A) DM being final word or not people like to act based on mutually share assumption. Yes a DM has the right to go against the book but in general they wont and it allows the players to do what they want without having to stop and question it constantly. They can act as naturally as their character would. This just makes the game run more smoothly, without clearly defined rules, limits and likelihoods of success at certain things how can someone think like their character if the world that character lives in behaves arbitrarily?
B) People don't like acting on a FAIR assumption and being told at the last second "No" when in all likelihood they would have done things very differently leading up to that point if they knew they couldn't. Its no fun for the person and once again it creates a disconnect between the character and the player. From an in character perspective a person living in the game world, an adventurer no less should have an idea of the way things work. When they can't know these things because it is left up to the DM to ad hoc how can you think and act in character if they cant make any assumptions that someone in the game world would know definitively?
In my games players have always been Exceptional individuals, not Exceptions to the internal logic of the game world.
I don't know why but having a player who will crash the entire night just for something like this is quite problematic. I don't think it is the system which is at fault but probably just a misunderstanding of the rules by one or another DM, or just a different point of view on the action played.
When you play with one DM, it sure won't be like with another because they are not identical robots with rules hard coded in their brains. They sometimes have to take decisions with guts because they don't want to delve into the rules and loose tension.
From what I understand of this situation, it seems that this player in particular seems to be easy to upset. Maybe should he be reminded the rule n°0. Players should never hijack a game this way. Players can sure help the DM if he doesn't remember a rule, but they can't force him to rule the same an another one ruled just because it was more beneficial to them.
My name is Kitton and I am advocating poor DM behavior and blaming the players for having the problem not the system for causing it.
Fixed that for you.
So apparently, letting a whiny player argue the game to a grinding halt because his other GM may or may not have interpreted the rules in a different fashion, or allowed him [possibly in a one-off manner] to do something that my not apply now, as opposed to keeping the game flowing with quick judgement calls, and keeping control over the more self-entitled players, is the system's fault, and a good GM would let himself get trampled no matter what that does to the campaign or other players.
Instead, ya know of making a judgement now with the authority of being the one running the bloody game, shutting up the whiner if its bad enough a local manchild needs a time-out or punishment without the threats exiting the game [affecting his character, not his face met by your chair], and discussing things in a civilised manner after the game when tensions have cooled off, which is what I was suggesting.
Boy have we ever been doing it wrong. I should totally put my head under our munchkin's boot.
I'm completely with you on this. Quite frankly, I don't give a rat's nethers what another DM let someone do. If I don't think it flies at my table, it doesn't fly. And if a player is going to be disruptive about it, I don't need him at my table either, and he's free to go find another group. My current general gaming group has 17 people in it, and that's not counting other folks that will occasionally come play. Now, we don't have all 17 in the same game (unless they all want to LARP maybe; no tabletop game can comfortably handle that many bodies I don't think), but it does mean that I don't have to go around begging for players. Not everyone has that situation, and I understand that, but at least in my case, I have no problem doing that. Not that I'd have a problem anyway - I'd rather have no game than a game with bad players in it.
That all said, I am not the sort of DM that tells his players "no" all the time. I'm a big proponent of the "yes, and..." game. I will tell them no on occasion, when the situation calls for it, but those are fairly rare.
Both of you are being rediculous. Phried said nothing like that. The issue is when a DM is not making consistent judgment calls and it is effecting play negatively. If the DM is forced to give up consistence to keep the game moving at a decent pace then maybe they are not qualified to be doing the job. This becomes the systems fault because it could have had more defined rules and ecouraged DMs to not stray from them so players have a solid base from which to make assumptions on so they can behave like a rational character who is part of the game world, not a person constantly having the worry their DM will see things their way to get anything done. The fact that Fighters absolutely need the DM to see things their way to do anything beyond "I hit them" and Wizards have clearly defined abilities only makes this worse.
In my games players have always been Exceptional individuals, not Exceptions to the internal logic of the game world.
The player was wrong. Even if the DM made a bad ruling the player was wrong. In the end the DM ruling is final. Any player who would sulk over a DM ruling is acting way beyond childest.
No system can fix a whining brat and shouldn't be forced to. That is what the DM is for.
Both of you are being rediculous. Phried said nothing like that. The issue is when a DM is not making consistent judgment calls and it is effecting play negatively. If the DM is forced to give up consistence to keep the game moving at a decent pace then maybe they are not qualified to be doing the job. This becomes the systems fault because it could have had more defined rules and ecouraged DMs to not stray from them so players have a solid base from which to make assumptions on so they can behave like a rational character who is part of the game world, not a person constantly having the worry their DM will see things their way to get anything done. The fact that Fighters absolutely need the DM to see things their way to do anything beyond "I hit them" and Wizards have clearly defined abilities only makes this worse.
First off, a small nitpick - the word is "ridiculous," not "rediculous." Why in the hell everyone has started misspelling that word lately is beyond me. Anyway, back to the point...
Given that I (and clearly other people) have never had this problem, with this system or any other system that allows for "DM Fiat," I submit that the fault does not lie with the system at all. If it did, there would be a more consistant failing amongst more DM's.
Furthermore, there has been the assertion a number of times in this thread that the playtest materials don't give any guidelines in this regard. That is demonstrably false, as I already pointed out, given that 2/3 of the DM Guidelines packet concerns itself with the very topic at hand.
Taking all this in mind, I conclude that the system is not at fault - rather, with these general sorts of situations, it seems to me that the problem lies in differing sets of expectations (easily solved by the DM and player talking civilly about the situation *after game*), and/or a DM that didn't bother to read the literature provided.
Neither of those things are the system's fault. The adage about leading a horse to water seems to fit here, I should think.
For those confused on how DDN's modular rules might work, this may provide some insight: http://www.tor.com/blogs/2012/11/the-world-of-darkness-shines-when-it-abandons-canon
@mikemearls: Uhhh... do you really not see all the 3e/4e that's basically the entire core system?
Both of you are being rediculous. Phried said nothing like that. The issue is when a DM is not making consistent judgment calls and it is effecting play negatively. If the DM is forced to give up consistence to keep the game moving at a decent pace then maybe they are not qualified to be doing the job. This becomes the systems fault because it could have had more defined rules and ecouraged DMs to not stray from them so players have a solid base from which to make assumptions on so they can behave like a rational character who is part of the game world, not a person constantly having the worry their DM will see things their way to get anything done. The fact that Fighters absolutely need the DM to see things their way to do anything beyond "I hit them" and Wizards have clearly defined abilities only makes this worse.
First off, a small nitpick - the word is "ridiculous," not "rediculous." Why in the hell everyone has started misspelling that word lately is beyond me. Anyway, back to the point...
Given that I (and clearly other people) have never had this problem, with this system or any other system that allows for "DM Fiat," I submit that the fault does not lie with the system at all. If it did, there would be a more consistant failing amongst more DM's.
Furthermore, there has been the assertion a number of times in this thread that the playtest materials don't give any guidelines in this regard. That is demonstrably false, as I already pointed out, given that 2/3 of the DM Guidelines packet concerns itself with the very topic at hand.
Taking all this in mind, I conclude that the system is not at fault - rather, with these general sorts of situations, it seems to me that the problem lies in differing sets of expectations (easily solved by the DM and player talking civilly about the situation *after game*), and/or a DM that didn't bother to read the literature provided.
Neither of those things are the system's fault. The adage about leading a horse to water seems to fit here, I should think.
You seem to be working on the false assumpsion that I think those guidelines are enough. You see I always GM and its been that way for years. I've seen other people GM and the vast majority are incompetent and over the years have had at 8 players leave the campaigns they were in due to poor GMing to join mine and you know what? I am not a permissive GM who gives players whatever they what, I have very strict guidelines for what types of characters are appropriate the campaigns I have in mind. They can be a part of it or not if they don't like the premise. I am deadly and it is not uncommon for multiple near deaths per session though none are ever arbitrary, this is actually less of a case in D&D because how prevalent healing magic is but I don't always run D&D. I have game table etiquette standards that quite frankly I have thrown players out for not living up to, if rest at the table on a regular basis you're out, if you don't look at someone's face when they are speaking and thus miss social cues on a regular basis you're out, if you are constantly contriving ways for your character to be the one to solve a problem when its is painly obvious that another party member can do it more effectively in a non-contrived way just to be in charge and set the pace of events you're out after your first warning if it persists. All of that and I have never been short on players for a 5 party and do you know why? Obviously you don't. It is because I solve problems before they happen. I don't wait until the end of sessions to solve disputes, I don't even allow them to happen by being completely up front about every single thing before the campaign even starts. I say "You can attempt anything the rules say you can attempt and if you succeed by RAW I will never stop it, ever. The only way to effectively roleplay is to be as one with your character and you can only do this if the rules function as physics not my guidelines and you can make assumptions about things that realistically a person living in the game world would simply know. As you are not a person in that world with access street level knowledge of that world you are handicapped so the best thing that I can do to resolve this is say everything in the books true all the time. If X npc lives here, works there and hangs out at some place guess what they do, go find them if you think it will help. Lone Star sure loves hunting down criminals and brutalizing them in future Seattle, something you are and a place you happen to be! Their capabilities as of the start of the campaign are listed right here in the book, you know it, I know it and I will never contradict it either for your benefit or detriment because that way we never waste time on the issue again. Ad infinitum for everything about every system I have ever ran."
Doing anything less than that is merely an admission of your own inability to provide your players with agency.
In my games players have always been Exceptional individuals, not Exceptions to the internal logic of the game world.
Doing anything less than that is merely an admission of your own inability to provide your players with agency.
And you seem to be functioning on two false assumptions:
1) That I don't give my players plenty of agency. Are you familiar with the "yes, and..." style of improvisational theatre? If not, that may be the disconnect there. We don't need a metric ton of rules for every situation because not only is that ridiculous, but for the most part, what folks want to do is reasonable. "I want to look around for a rock to throw and bounce off the sentry's head to get his attention." "Well, given that you're in a cave/forest/other location where pebbles and rocks would logically be, sure, no problem. You can easily find a rock to throw." Only in situations where it would be foolhardy do I say no. I give the players plenty of agency to help define our shared (key word, that) imaginative space.
2) That putting a whole bunch of words in bold makes your point any more forceful. I assure you, I can read the words you're saying without the bold.
Honestly, I think the only dissimilar part we have here is the amount of rules we prefer to have in our game books, nothing more.
For those confused on how DDN's modular rules might work, this may provide some insight: http://www.tor.com/blogs/2012/11/the-world-of-darkness-shines-when-it-abandons-canon
@mikemearls: Uhhh... do you really not see all the 3e/4e that's basically the entire core system?
Doing anything less than that is merely an admission of your own inability to provide your players with agency.
And you seem to be functioning on two false assumptions:
1) That I don't give my players plenty of agency. Are you familiar with the "yes, and..." style of improvisational theatre? If not, that may be the disconnect there. We don't need a metric ton of rules for every situation because not only is that ridiculous, but for the most part, what folks want to do is reasonable. "I want to look around for a rock to throw and bounce off the sentry's head to get his attention." "Well, given that you're in a cave/forest/other location where pebbles and rocks would logically be, sure, no problem. You can easily find a rock to throw." Only in situations where it would be foolhardy do I say no. I give the players plenty of agency to help define our shared (key word, that) imaginative space.
2) That putting a whole bunch of words in bold makes your point any more forceful. I assure you, I can read the words you're saying without the bold.
Honestly, I think the only dissimilar part we have here is the amount of rules we prefer to have in our game books, nothing more.
Also the amount of contempt we hold for other people. I'm sure I hold a lot more contempt.
In my games players have always been Exceptional individuals, not Exceptions to the internal logic of the game world.
Both of you are being rediculous. Phried said nothing like that
My name is Kitton and I am advocating poor DM behavior and blaming the players for having the problem not the system for causing it.
Actually, it was effectively said. That it appears to have been deleted now does not really change that its what I/[we?] were responding to. It seems to be gone now, for whatever reason.
The way I see it there's two ways 'other gm' comes up. "Alright, I wanna try this; under the rules OtherGM had ruled this an appropriate interpretation of the rules on This ability, is that alright?" This is polite and acceptable up to that point. He's explaining where he got the idea from, that it was fine last time, and is asking if the GM here is ruling the same way. The GM may have to look, or may approve this time and look it up later, or may say "not this time but I'll look it up afterwards" or "no, we've dealt with this before at the table and ruled otherwise'.
But the situation the opening poster gave us is... "the other one". The player tried to get a freebie, did an appeal to [a different] authority when he was told he'd need to roll a check, and proceeded to be a poor member of the table for the remainder of the evening, to the point where it seems the session was soured for everyone. That's exactly the kind of attitude that needs some disciplining.
Punishment need not be that unamusing for everyone involved [except perhaps the offending player] though. Hack's "Smartass Smackdown Table" had some things like "A powerful NPC falls in unnatural love with the PC" [note; unnatural was referring to what they've in mind for the PC, not that they're under a charm effect].
The rest of the party, hell perhaps even the player himself if he behaves, got to have great fun having to deal with the king's concubine deciding the 'rogue' would be the perfect model for her 'lonely duchess' brand 'marital aid statue gardens', and the only thing preventing his lovely form from forever gracing her bedroom is that annoying issue of not currently being petrified...
