"Reclaiming the DM's Throne: Parts 1, 2 and 3" by Monte Cook [Archive] - Wizards Community

"Reclaiming the DM's Throne: Parts 1, 2 and 3" by Monte Cook [Archive] - Wizards Community

Post/Author/DateTime Post
sanishiver
10-15-03, 05:45 PM Here are links to each article:

*Part 1: Description and When to Use It (http://www.montecook.com/arch_dmonly24.html)

*Part 2: How Does That Rule Work Again? (http://www.montecook.com/arch_dmonly25.html)

*EDIT: New article posted! Part 3: Logical Sense (http://www.montecook.com/dmonly.html)

If you are a DM, these articles (heck, the whole series) are a must read. I've saved more than a few on my computer for reference off-line.

If you can relate to anything written in the above articles, please feel free to comment on this thread.

:whatsthis
The Abominable Darkling
10-15-03, 07:52 PM Edit: Post removed to avoid confusion.
sanishiver
10-15-03, 08:30 PM Originally posted by The Abominable Darkling
Posting this was a nice thought sanishiver, though it is a copyright violation. I'm sure Monte won't mind, but you should have got his permission first.

!!

I'm so used to cross posting off of the WotC mailing lists I didn't even give it a second thought.

I'll take it down for now and try to send Monte an Email in the meantime.

:D
Oberon_of_Avalon
10-15-03, 08:54 PM Nonetheless, good stuff, thanks for pointing it out to us.
Whaledawg
10-16-03, 08:14 AM Boy, wait till I tell the rules you posted this.

Your gonna be in trouble......:devil:
PenderGrass
10-16-03, 09:28 AM Boy, wait till I tell the rules you posted this.

And I shall report you for harrassment:D
sanishiver
10-16-03, 11:19 AM Originally posted by Oberon_of_Avalon
Nonetheless, good stuff, thanks for pointing it out to us.

My pleasure! Us DM's need to stick together, after all.

I posted a premission request on Monte's website. Hopefully he'll see it and let us know either way.

:whatsthis
JLP
10-16-03, 11:27 AM Whoops. Sorry. Just wandered in here looking for the head.
Oberon_of_Avalon
10-16-03, 11:32 AM Originally posted by Whaledawg
Boy, wait till I tell the rules you posted this.

Your gonna be in trouble......:devil:

What exactly is so wrong with linking a DnD-realted article about Dungeon Mastering on the Dungeon Master's forum? I'm sure Mr. Cook won't mind, since we're viewing his site and material (well, now that the post was edited to remove whatever it was infringing before), it's just being recommended through a different source.
ikkonoishi
10-16-03, 11:36 AM The post originally had the article text as well as a link.
PenderGrass
10-16-03, 11:49 AM Just wandered in here looking for the head.

Over by the Portside Bulkhead, dude...:rolleyes:
sanishiver
10-16-03, 05:43 PM Still no word from Monte. However, part 3 of the series just went up. I added a link to it on the first post of this thread.

In the meantime, has anyone had any experiences DM'ing that fit what Monte was talking about in his articles?

:whatsthis
sanishiver
10-17-03, 03:32 AM Monte said he prefers links, so that's what we'll stick with.

:whatsthis
Whaledawg
10-17-03, 10:43 AM What exactly is so wrong with linking a DnD-realted article about Dungeon Mastering on the Dungeon Master's forum? I'm sure Mr. Cook won't mind, since we're viewing his site and material (well, now that the post was edited to remove whatever it was infringing before), it's just being recommended through a different source.

Did you read the article? The one that started out
This is the first part of a series of articles regarding the conflict of who is in charge, the rules or the DM.

It sarcasm that difficult to comprehend?
sanishiver
10-17-03, 03:18 PM Originally posted by Whaledawg
Did you read the article? The one that started out ... It sarcasm that difficult to comprehend?

Hey, it's all good. So let's move on and talk about the articles now.

I have to admit that I usually throw out stats during the game (such as the +4 cover bonus a foe is currently benefiting from) instead of saying something like, "You can only see him from the waist up."

So, what is the deffault for the rest of you? Numbers and description, just numbers, or just description?

:whatsthis
Jenny With The Lantern
10-17-03, 04:04 PM I've been DMing for a while now, and since a month one of my players is also playing in another campaign, with a group I don't know at all.
He brings 'home' loads of ideas, most of which make me go :rolleyes: , but one of them was the idea to stop:

DM: I've got an 18, did I hit you?
Player: Yes.

and start:

DM: What's your armor class?
Player: 17
DM: Ok, the arrow the orc fired at you pierces your both your armor and your shoulder. You receive 6 damage.

It's way(!!) more fun, and it makes cheating for the DM easier (yes, I'm in favor of DM cheating; because I cheat to make an encounter fun for my players, not to 'win').

This also means, as I think Monte stated, that if you don't know if a player could scale a certain cliff and don't want to look it up, you can just describe his action failing, instead of saying 'Nope, your 16 Climb check was just not high enough' and thereby opening an argument like 'but the PHB says it should be high enough!'

Of course, when I have a big battle and I've done some descriptions, we speed up and often leave out the descriptions. But nobody has problems with it.

PS I'm a big fan of Monte Cook's and I read his site weekly!!
sanishiver
10-20-03, 03:57 AM :bump:
Tzor
10-20-03, 09:18 AM I like Monte's third article. In practice a DM should not need to have every rule memorized and players should not expect him or her to be perfect in this reguard.

However, a DM should be somewhat familiar with "why" the rules exist ... knowing why is often far better than knowing the details of how, because the details of how can be derived once you understand the reasons why.

Having designed a good deal of 3E it might not be obvious to Monte, since he naturally knows a lot of the "why" already as a matter of course, but that is why he is able to be confident even if he can't remember the current letter of the current rule.

In fact I will make a statement that in my opinion, I know of no rule abuse which does not violate in a fundamental way one of the "why's" behind the rules in the first place. Knowing "why" initative, "why" AOO, and so forth can significantly improve a DM's confidence in the middle of any situation.

Going back to the arugment on description, this is another example where the why of the nature of Hit Points becomes important. The goal for the DM is to describe the situation in a way that is visualy appropriate but at the same time does not cause inconsistancies with the rules which can cause suspension of disbelief.

The same attack to an opponent with high hp must be described differently compared to the opponent with low hp. That 8 hp towards a creature of 80 hp may be a cut on his side, but to the 10 hp creatue may be a gash along his side. But in either case the creature still has positive hp, still has the same combat potential he had before the incident. Both are injured, however, only they are injured differently.

This means one has to be comfortable going from one point of view to another point of view that may not map logically to each other. Hit Points and actual physical damage is one example. Initative and time is another example. Once you are comfortable with this idea, basically the why of the idea, then you can better describe the situation without tripping over the rules.
Damren
10-22-03, 12:30 AM Originally posted by sanishiver
:bump:

Post/Author/DateTime	Post
sanishiver 10-15-03, 05:45 PM	Here are links to each article: Part 1: Description and When to Use It (http://www.montecook.com/arch_dmonly24.html) Part 2: How Does That Rule Work Again? (http://www.montecook.com/arch_dmonly25.html) *EDIT: New article posted! Part 3: Logical Sense (http://www.montecook.com/dmonly.html) If you are a DM, these articles (heck, the whole series) are a must read. I've saved more than a few on my computer for reference off-line. If you can relate to anything written in the above articles, please feel free to comment on this thread. :whatsthis
The Abominable Darkling 10-15-03, 07:52 PM	Edit: Post removed to avoid confusion.
sanishiver 10-15-03, 08:30 PM	Originally posted by The Abominable Darkling Posting this was a nice thought sanishiver, though it is a copyright violation. I'm sure Monte won't mind, but you should have got his permission first. !! I'm so used to cross posting off of the WotC mailing lists I didn't even give it a second thought. I'll take it down for now and try to send Monte an Email in the meantime. :D
Oberon_of_Avalon 10-15-03, 08:54 PM	Nonetheless, good stuff, thanks for pointing it out to us.
Whaledawg 10-16-03, 08:14 AM	Boy, wait till I tell the rules you posted this. Your gonna be in trouble......:devil:
PenderGrass 10-16-03, 09:28 AM	Boy, wait till I tell the rules you posted this. And I shall report you for harrassment:D
sanishiver 10-16-03, 11:19 AM	Originally posted by Oberon_of_Avalon Nonetheless, good stuff, thanks for pointing it out to us. My pleasure! Us DM's need to stick together, after all. I posted a premission request on Monte's website. Hopefully he'll see it and let us know either way. :whatsthis
JLP 10-16-03, 11:27 AM	Whoops. Sorry. Just wandered in here looking for the head.
Oberon_of_Avalon 10-16-03, 11:32 AM	Originally posted by Whaledawg Boy, wait till I tell the rules you posted this. Your gonna be in trouble......:devil: What exactly is so wrong with linking a DnD-realted article about Dungeon Mastering on the Dungeon Master's forum? I'm sure Mr. Cook won't mind, since we're viewing his site and material (well, now that the post was edited to remove whatever it was infringing before), it's just being recommended through a different source.
ikkonoishi 10-16-03, 11:36 AM	The post originally had the article text as well as a link.
PenderGrass 10-16-03, 11:49 AM	Just wandered in here looking for the head. Over by the Portside Bulkhead, dude...:rolleyes:
sanishiver 10-16-03, 05:43 PM	Still no word from Monte. However, part 3 of the series just went up. I added a link to it on the first post of this thread. In the meantime, has anyone had any experiences DM'ing that fit what Monte was talking about in his articles? :whatsthis
sanishiver 10-17-03, 03:32 AM	Monte said he prefers links, so that's what we'll stick with. :whatsthis
Whaledawg 10-17-03, 10:43 AM	What exactly is so wrong with linking a DnD-realted article about Dungeon Mastering on the Dungeon Master's forum? I'm sure Mr. Cook won't mind, since we're viewing his site and material (well, now that the post was edited to remove whatever it was infringing before), it's just being recommended through a different source. Did you read the article? The one that started out This is the first part of a series of articles regarding the conflict of who is in charge, the rules or the DM. It sarcasm that difficult to comprehend?
sanishiver 10-17-03, 03:18 PM	Originally posted by Whaledawg Did you read the article? The one that started out ... It sarcasm that difficult to comprehend? Hey, it's all good. So let's move on and talk about the articles now. I have to admit that I usually throw out stats during the game (such as the +4 cover bonus a foe is currently benefiting from) instead of saying something like, "You can only see him from the waist up." So, what is the deffault for the rest of you? Numbers and description, just numbers, or just description? :whatsthis
Jenny With The Lantern 10-17-03, 04:04 PM	I've been DMing for a while now, and since a month one of my players is also playing in another campaign, with a group I don't know at all. He brings 'home' loads of ideas, most of which make me go :rolleyes: , but one of them was the idea to stop: DM: I've got an 18, did I hit you? Player: Yes. and start: DM: What's your armor class? Player: 17 DM: Ok, the arrow the orc fired at you pierces your both your armor and your shoulder. You receive 6 damage. It's way(!!) more fun, and it makes cheating for the DM easier (yes, I'm in favor of DM cheating; because I cheat to make an encounter fun for my players, not to 'win'). This also means, as I think Monte stated, that if you don't know if a player could scale a certain cliff and don't want to look it up, you can just describe his action failing, instead of saying 'Nope, your 16 Climb check was just not high enough' and thereby opening an argument like 'but the PHB says it should be high enough!' Of course, when I have a big battle and I've done some descriptions, we speed up and often leave out the descriptions. But nobody has problems with it. PS I'm a big fan of Monte Cook's and I read his site weekly!!
sanishiver 10-20-03, 03:57 AM	:bump:
Tzor 10-20-03, 09:18 AM	I like Monte's third article. In practice a DM should not need to have every rule memorized and players should not expect him or her to be perfect in this reguard. However, a DM should be somewhat familiar with "why" the rules exist ... knowing why is often far better than knowing the details of how, because the details of how can be derived once you understand the reasons why. Having designed a good deal of 3E it might not be obvious to Monte, since he naturally knows a lot of the "why" already as a matter of course, but that is why he is able to be confident even if he can't remember the current letter of the current rule. In fact I will make a statement that in my opinion, I know of no rule abuse which does not violate in a fundamental way one of the "why's" behind the rules in the first place. Knowing "why" initative, "why" AOO, and so forth can significantly improve a DM's confidence in the middle of any situation. Going back to the arugment on description, this is another example where the why of the nature of Hit Points becomes important. The goal for the DM is to describe the situation in a way that is visualy appropriate but at the same time does not cause inconsistancies with the rules which can cause suspension of disbelief. The same attack to an opponent with high hp must be described differently compared to the opponent with low hp. That 8 hp towards a creature of 80 hp may be a cut on his side, but to the 10 hp creatue may be a gash along his side. But in either case the creature still has positive hp, still has the same combat potential he had before the incident. Both are injured, however, only they are injured differently. This means one has to be comfortable going from one point of view to another point of view that may not map logically to each other. Hit Points and actual physical damage is one example. Initative and time is another example. Once you are comfortable with this idea, basically the why of the idea, then you can better describe the situation without tripping over the rules.
Damren 10-22-03, 12:30 AM	Originally posted by sanishiver :bump: