Post/Author/DateTime	Post
#1 zombiegleemax Sep 23, 2003 23:48:24	There is a whole set of assumptions about how a DM runs his game that are never really discussed when a new game starts. I think often, these are the very things that lead to a flaming trainwreck a few sessions later, when the players have been operating under a different set of guidelines than the DM. I'm not talking about things like the campaign setting or the theme for a particular campaign; I'm talking about the underlying principles of playing in a roleplaying game; the things that form the foundation for being able to tell a cooperative story. In an ideal situation, all of these assumptions will be made clear to all players before the game begins. More typically, none of them are, and if the DMs assumption radically departs from the players', the game will explode into a confrontation that neither side wants (or often even understands). In an effort to prevent these early game deaths, I present a list of the most common accidental assumptions about how to run the game. In the interest of full disclosure, I also list where I come down on each issue, so you can judge for yourself where my bias stands. 1. Whether or not the world conspires to make the PCs heroes. Some people believe the PCs are born heroes, and that the universe should be constructed in such a way as to make every session challenging but ultimately very beatable. Others believe that the world is the world, and the PCs are just another group of adventurers. In such a world, it is the player's responsibility to make sure they don't walk into a battle that is way too tough for them. The players could stumble into a red dragon's lair at 1st level, and the DM would decree that they had brought it upon themselves—a rude awakening if the players are used to being hailed as heroes for killing 1 kobold. In My Games: I consider my games to fall somewhere in the middle of these two extremes. There will probably be a fair amount of "happy coincidences" in the level of monsters the PCs fight, but it will always be possible to get in over your head, especially through bad (or no) planning. 2. Whether or not the PCs can make mistakes. This may seem strange, but I know that in some games, the DM changes the plot to make whatever the PCs decide to do end up being the right thing. In other games, the DM will run a combat in the way it was conceived, even if the PCs make the worst tactical mistakes possible. The latter game is usually more deadly, because it requires the players to predict what sort of mistakes would be disastrous and then not commit them. It is also more realistic. In My Games: Players are responsible if they do stupid things, and they hopefully learn not to do them again. Or they get killed. 3. Whether the game is static or active. In a static game, nothing happens except when the PCs are in the room. Lots of early D&D dungeons went with this method, and it is simple but wildly unrealistic. In an active game, a situation can often occur "off-camera" of which the PCs aren't aware, and may NEVER be aware. Things may happen that won't make sense until later, when the secrets are revealed, or may never make sense. I'll be honest, this type of world is MUCH harder for the DM to run, because it means keeping track of things that are going on in other places, all the time. One of the drawbacks is that it requires trust on the part of the players that the DM is not just making things up to screw them; if the players are suspicious of the DM, they are likely to conclude that things are unfair. In My Games: I use a mostly active world. In my last RL campaign, there were plots unfolding over the course of a year (real time) that happened entirely off-camera. Plot threads dangled for months before making sense to the PCs. It is completely unreasonable in my game for a player to expect that they necessarily will have access to all of the events influencing the present. On the other hand, on the small scale, certain encounters will happen only when the heroes enter the area. There's not much point in having wounded herald stumble into the throne room when the heroes aren't there to hear his message. 4. How much information the players are given. In some games, all Spot/Listen/Search/Sense Motive checks are rolled by the players, and the information earned through a success if given out loud. Players may even be in charge of determining when to make such a roll, such as by saying, "I want to make a Spot check," and then rolling it. In other games, the DM rolls checks in secret and passes notes back and forth (or otherwise communicates) with the people who succeeded. In the latter type of game, the players with low Spot and Listen scores will probably feel like things are jumping out of the bushes all the time at them and they have no chance to see them. But, then, that would probably be how the character feels too! This too requires trust between the players and DM; if the players don't believe the DM is trustworthy, they will assume he fudged all rolls that led to their surprise. In My Games: The only time I don't use the note method is when it is something that is about to be irrelevant anyway, such someone springing from the bushes in such a way that he can't possibly be hidden afterwards. It is the responsibility of the players to either share or not share information they get from such notes. 5. Whether or not NPCs fight logically and in according with their backgrounds and mental ability scores. In some games, monsters pretty much charge the PCs and try to just beat them down. Every time. Normal human warriors fight to the death over any situation. In other games, the monsters use every advantage they have to ensure their own survival: terrain, cover, concealment, escape, treachery, deception, flanking, the 5-foot-step, reach, feat selection, even surrender are all part of the NPC's bag of potential tricks, assuming they are smart enough to figure them out. If a creature has a missile weapon, they will take cover behind something. If they can get higher ground, they will. If they can run with their lives, they will. And if they can get reliable advance notice of the arrival of the PCs, they will use all of these advantages and more. According to one theory of war, in a standard battle, the defender chooses where and the attacker chooses when. An ambush, however, is when one side accidentally allows the other side to choose where AND when, and it is usually a slaughter. The difference in methods can become problematic when the players assume they will be fighting in a stand-up battle, and not seek cover or higher ground, while the NPCs will use and abuse every advantage they can find. In My Games:[/b] NPCs do not want to die, and will do what they can to prevent it. PCs are encouraged to think the same way rather than walking into battle after battle. If you're not taking cover, you are saying, "I am OK with being shot at." 6. Whether NPCs are just extensions of the DM's will or speak for themselves. Often, players assume that if an allied NPC says something, it must be information that the DM is trying to impart to the players. In more roleplaying-intensive games, however, the NPC will have his own hopes, dreams, and desires that may even directly contradict what the DM wants. In My Games: NPCs tend to say what they are thinking, not what I am thinking. Often, I have NPCs bring up points that are deliberately false (though the NPC doesn't know this) as a way of helping the players "shake out" false leads from a mystery. During my last game, I was blessed to have two NPCs with entirely conflicting viewpoints: a battle-hungry warrior and a pacifist cleric (later, this conveniently switched to an enchantress and a warrior-cleric). I was able to have them present two opposing viewpoints on any situation that would then have to be judged by the players through the filter of their personalities and knowledge. Thus, I was helping the players by giving them things to think about while still not handing them the answer. 7. Whether or not the game is fair. For some DMs, being impartial is more important than having the story go the way they want. For others, the story is King and they will bend the rules as they see fit in order to let their villain escape or to capture the PCs. One of the problems with this assumption is that many DMs who run games that are skewed in this manner are not even aware of the bias; they may assume it is always the DM's job to make the story go exactly as they have envisioned it. In My Games: I divorce myself from the plot when I am making game rule decisions. Whether or not I want the bad guy to get away, if you come up with a way to stop him and succeed, he will be stopped. That being said, it is entirely appropriate for the villain to have means to stop you from preventing his escape, and I won't hesitate to give intelligent villains those means when I am statting them. 8. How much the players talk to each other. This one doesn't involve the DM at all. Some players will turn and share every scrap of information their character gets with the rest of the party, while others will hoard their secrets until the perfect dramatic moment. In My Games: I leave this choice up to my players, but I don't allow one player to get angry with another for keeping secrets. 9. How long players are allowed to argue. In most games there is a point where the DM will no longer allow arguing about the rules. Although I have seen games where the players are allowed to continue to argue forever: the game falls apart, or the DM caves in even though he believes he is right. In My Games: A player can argue as long as they continue to present new information. Once they get to the point where they are restating evidence I have already looked at and rejected, we're moving on. 10. What the intensity level of the game is. What I mean by this is whether the game is casual or serious. Not that it can't be funny and serious; what I'm saying is, does the DM expect the players to care deeply about what is going on, or is the game largely a social activity? Will the players keep track of things that happened last session on their own? Will they mentally turn the latest ongoing mystery over and over in the shower five days later? Or will they forget the name of the city they are in five minutes after they are told it? An intense game can be a very rewarding experience, but it is also a lot of work. Not everyone enjoys putting that much energy into their game. The problem is, these games can only come to life when all the players are on board. In My Games: I only DM intense games. Or rather, I always try to make my games intense. I want to play the emotions of my players like a fine violin. I want to spin a tale of such scope that it begins to invade my player's dreams. I have had varying degrees of success; I know there are people reading this who will have immediate visceral reaction to the name "Goldblade." And my campaigns definitely invade my life; I keep a tape recorder by my bed because I got tired of losing perfect plot twists I thought up as I fell asleep. Hopefully, this article is helpful in making you think about what hidden assumptions you may be making in your game that your fellow players don't even know about. And next time your session ends in an inexplicable argument, realize that it may just be because the DM and the players fall on opposite ends of one of these precepts.
#2 steve_russell Sep 26, 2003 1:41:18	In my opinion these are not simply fundamental decisions each group makes but also the fundamental art of being a good GM in maintaing a continuing enjoyable activity.
#3 zombiegleemax Feb 17, 2004 22:12:34	I really enjoyed your article. I thought that it was well thought out, and while I may disagree about how you handle it in your game vs. how I would handle it, I agree that these things need to be discussed prior to starting out the game. I disagree a bit with the last poster, about this being a "fundamental art of being a good GM in maintaing a continuing enjoyable activity". You can be a good GM with your own set of assumptions, and the players can have their own set of assumptions that are different (while still be a good player) and still have a train wreck. I will never forget the worst game session I ever had involved going to a Gaming Club (I was new in the area and wanted to get involved) and joined a pick-up game. The DM made no statements about the intent of the game from the start. I worked hard on making a new monk (this right after 3.0 came out) to try out the rules. The game became a shambles. I had a serious intent on the game, thinking that we were going to be spinning a tale of fantasy - but in the end the DM (and the other players who had been playing with the DM for a while) wanted to spin a tale of folly. I almost killed the other PC - because he was walking down the hallway whistling (while we were trying to sneak around) cause he thought it would be funny and he knew that the DM would suspend the rules of the monsters hearing - because he also thought it was funny. Not once during the whole character creation process did the DM say anything about it being a folly game. Even when I worked on a character hook to get myself involved with the rest of the party. At the end of the evening I was furious to the point that I complained to the club president and never returned. Is that my fault? Maybe - after all the other players were enjoying themselves. Is it the DM's fault (at the time I thought yes)? But in restropect I think that it was a case of bad assumptions. He told me that my gaming style did not go "with his looser freeform style". While to this day I still think of him as the worst GM in my 20 years of playing the game, I still think that the part that made him the worst was not recognizing the problem from the start. But in general, if we had used the 10 rules above - perhaps I would have not even wasted my time. So it is not just "being a good GM" - it is getting the unspoken ground rules out there from the get go. I am an engineer working on multi-billion dollar projects. To keep from blowing our money we always wright a design basis to get everyone on the same playing field. I have started to form the concept of doing a campaign basis. Kind of like a contract between the players and the DM listing the common issues to establish before a game even begins. I think I will use the above 10 points as a starting point. Some others that I think need to be added: Magic - establish the expectations of magic early on. I always thought that a +1 sword was a legendary item. After all how many magic swords are out there? Other people think of a +1 sword as a backup night-light. Establish how prevalent magic and espically magic items are in the world. Is there a magic shop where the PC's can buy scrolls and potions. Or are scrolls only to be found in ancient libraries after defusing many traps? Resurection - Similar to magic - but different enough to warrant a seperate item. In my games - only an act of a diety can raise someone from the dead. The players know this from the start. They may not like it, but that is the way it is. Character Hooks - the DM nightmare. Lest you want to be known as BA - establish early on how the adventures are going to be laid out. Is it a world where the PC's have to find adventure - how active do they need to be in sniffing out the adventure- or are you get them on the "roll vs. boxed text" railroad. Both are extremly frustrating if you are used to the other. In my game, I use a balance. But I tell the PC's that I have time to only prepare one adventure. I establish a campaign arc based on the characters and the world. So I don't write any adventures until all the characters are made up. I don't mind the sidetreck once in a while. But at the same time I talk to the players to establish what they want to do in the campaign before starting. One of my other least favorite campaigns was when the DM was looking out across a blank faces as she asked where we were going. No clues, no hooks, nothing - it was like a video game where we had to march all over the country looking for adventures. I have also blown up before when the players continuly refused adventure hooks. At the end of the day - I retired the whole party. I told them that after throwing them hooks - I was done. If they wanted to spend their adventuring carrer at the tavern more power to em. To this day I think they are still waiting at the pub for the "right" adventure. There is a very good post on this board about this topic. Enough for now.....