Thou shalt not railroad. If you want to make characters do things, write a book.
Thou shalt be flexible. The words "PC" shall never be combined in any way shape or form with the words "Should do", "supposed to do", or any permutation of the above.
Thou shalt not have DMPCs, save the party has not all roles filled, and then only if thine characters agree.
Feel free to add.
The best part I like about owning the DMG, is that in the moment we're in a skill challenge, I know the complexity. In other words, I know how many successes we need, and how many failures we're allowed.
Thou shalt be flexible. The words "PC" shall never be combined in any way shape or form with the words "Should do", "supposed to do", or any permutation of the above.Thou shalt not have DMPCs, save the party has not all roles filled, and then only if thine characters agree. Feel free to add.
1. Oh gods yes. I supposedly 'ruined' a DM's adventure for the night a while back by not acting like I was 'supposed to', meaning as a druid, I was supposed to attack someone who was chopping down a tree on sight and with mindless fervor.
2. In 4e, I think this should be extended to 'no DMPCs period'. The game is well-designed and balanced enough that you don't need every role covered.
If the players know what they're doing, it's best to have them run multiple characters without the DM's help. This solution will solve all DMPC problems everyone complains about.
Thou shalt understand how encounters are intended to be built and not pit PCs against encounters too high for their level without scaling things.
If running a published adventure, thou shalt not follow the adventure verbatim.
Thou shalt never, under any circumstances, try to push thy idea of how "D&D should be" onto thy players.
Thou shalt not have DMPCs,
Post from simular threads:
DMPCs can work out quite well if done correctly.
In the Campaign that I DM(3.5), my two brothers and I each control two characters, so I have two DMPCs.
These two characters are treated as just another member of the adventuring party with a few exceptions.
1) They usually never give advice unless asked and I am always careful with DM knowledge vs character knowledge. But they also have opinions and will occasionally express them. For example, one of my DMPCs loves forests, so when an adventure/task is completed and the discussion of "where to next" comes up: he will suggest traveling to and exploring a nearby forest. Even if I have nothing planned for that forest(they each still have a personality after-all, as any other character would). Samething goes for my other DMPC(who will likely have an opposite(of the forest explorer) opinion of where he'd like to visit.) Ultimately the decisions are up to the adventuring party as a whole, with each character having an equal vote. (I try to run more of an open-ended campaign). With that said they only offer advice/opinions to problems/puzzles/etc when/if asked.
2) When in combat and in certain situations, I decide where a DMPC is going to position himself and then roll randomly for a planned hidden monster's location. Example: The DMPC climbs up one tree out of a possible six to get a better view of the situation/area, I then roll a 1d6 to place the hidden monster within a tree. Rather than deciding which tree the hidden monster will be in before hand.
3) If a DMPC goes off to do something on his own, it's done so 'off screen' or simply explained with a brief description(where appropriate).
Other than that the two DMPCs are just another member of the adventuring party, loot is divided up equally, as is exp(the six characters all pretty much get the same exp and stay the same level, less headaches that way). The DMPCs never get any special treatment because they're a DMPC, I treat them as I would any other PC. I also stay 'on guard' for subconcious favortisim.
So far this is working out great. And each of us still get to be players even if we're DMing.
Being the DM does not entitle you to free food or boss the players around.
Being the DM does not entitle you to free food or boss the players around.
Oh yeah, that'd be nice to see in there... and a rule in the PHB that mentions that buying the DM dinner must be out of the kindness of your heart, and not an effort to extort experience points.
A good notice to players that they are entitled to a fair share of input into the game rules and campaign being run would be a bonus as well.
And, not sure if it was mentioned already, a DMG rule: Being DM does not mean that your opinion is more valid, more important, or more correct than that of any player - and especially not the combined opinions of your player group. a DM without a group of players is not a DM.
This thread could also be titled "Players Who Aren't Worth the Effort to DM For."
This thread could also be titled "Players Who Aren't Worth the Effort to DM For."
Only if you DM for a power trip.
Prety much every point mentioned so far is something that is actually a sign of a bad, power triping or control freak DM.
Only if I DM for a power trip? No. I DM for the love of the game. And for my friends. And for the fun. And the creative outlet. Your results may vary, however.
Well, we all see things through the filter of our experiences, of course, but "DMing doesn't earn you a sandwich" is a reaction to a powermad DM? Funny, it just sounds petty and unappreciative. In fact, most of the complaints sound demanding and more than a little bit whiney. My bad. We must be operating on different definitions. Please, kvetch to your heart's content.
"DMing doesn't earn you a sandwich" is a reaction to a powermad DM?
Yeah, a DM feeling entitled to the contents of your fridge because zie runs a game is totally fair and not at all an abuse of power.
I DM for the love of the game, and I support most of the points being made in this thread.
Only if I DM for a power trip? No. I DM for the love of the game. And for my friends. And for the fun. And the creative outlet. Your results may vary, however.
Well, we all see things through the filter of our experiences, of course, but "DMing doesn't earn you a sandwich" is a reaction to a powermad DM? Funny, it just sounds petty and unappreciative. In fact, most of the complaints sound demanding and more than a little bit whiney. My bad. We must be operating on different definitions. Please, kvetch to your heart's content.
What has anyone said that is demanding?
The parts so far are:
Do not railroad. be flexible. Know the rules. Do not demand payment.
I fail to see what part of that is demanding as all of those are hallmarks of a good DM.
"DMing doesn't earn you a sandwich" is a reaction to a powermad DM?
Yeah, a DM feeling entitled to the contents of your fridge because zie runs a game is totally fair and not at all an abuse of power.
I DM for the love of the game, and I support most of the points being made in this thread.
Well, there's these things called 'hospitality' and 'reciprocity'. Maybe you've heard of them? You see, when you invite someone into your home, especially someone who is doing the lion's share of the work, shouldering the lion's share of the responsibility, and, in the vast majority of cases, the lion's share of the expense, then arranging for a sandwich for the poor guy (or gal), really is the very least that one can do, financial conditions permitting, to be sure. Of course, appropriate hospitality falls somewhere in the continuum of helping hide the dead hooker down to "pay me for the air you breathed while you were here." Ideally the non-hosting, non-DMing players should be on sandwich patrol, but it rarely works that way.
As for the points being made in this thread, they are (so far):
1. DMPCs are verbotten. No, just used sparingly.
2. No railroading, ever. No, the DM is not Bethesda Games. Sometimes the only way the party can go is the way the DM has prepared. Once again, best used sparingly.
3. No expectations on character behavior. Once again, no. Expecting the DM to be at the beck and call of every single player's whim is unreasonable. They're called hooks for a reason.
4. The players set the rules. Still no, the DM sets the rules. Player input is always appreciated, even necessary. But in the end, it's the DM's call.
It seems to me that other than some personality issues evident in a poster or two, the biggest problem is that a lot of players seem to be spending a lot of time with bad DMs, which is both sad and understandable, I suppose, since being a good DM is harder than being a good player. I guess my negative reaction to some (okay, all) of the posts on this thread comes from all the effort I've put in to being a good DM, a conscientious player, and a good host. Seeing people post that a DM isn't worth a sandwich or a bag of chips just strikes me the wrong way. If you really think so, if your experience with DMs has really been that bad, then consider doing one of two things. Either step up and do the job yourself, or look harder for a better DM. And if you find one...buy him (or her) a sandwich. It may the best investment you ever make.
Well, jake, I think you've managed to misunderstand everything in the thread. Congratulations.
DMPCs should not be necessary. Adventure/encounter design is supposed to be tailored to the abilities of the PCs. If the PCs don't have anybody good at finding traps, the answer is to not use a lot of traps, not put in a character to find them.
Railroading is more than 'you have to go this way'. Railroading is 'you have to do exactly this'. Players know where the plot is; railroading is when there is only one way to arrive at the plot. Arbitrarily saying that a power or ritual that should work doesn't simply because it will bypass something is railroading. Having an impenetrable obstacle because you retroactively add ways to squelch the PCs abilities is railroading. An encounter hook should tell the PCs what needs to be done; let them figure out how they do it.
No expectations on PC behavior is more a matter of hanging on stereotypes that the character may not be playing. Not all dwarves are drunks, not all elves are hippies, and no sane DM should have a game hinging on that.
And yes, there is hospitality, but there's a big difference between being offered hospitality and thinking you're entitled to it.
but "DMing doesn't earn you a sandwich" is a reaction to a powermad DM?
To start, if you are going to complain about what someone said, make sure you know what they are saying, as you will get things wrong by just going off on nerd rage, or some other emotional coloring of the words. Now I listed 3 criteria joined by an OR conditional, and said that the "complaints" mentioned all fell into one of these. Now as anyone with any Logic skills will tell you in order for an OR conditional to be true you only need for one of the conditions to be met, and it is perfectly fair for the rest of the conditions to be false. If you want to address any statements you need to negate it for all 3 criteria.
And yes, there is hospitality, but there's a big difference between being offered hospitality and thinking you're entitled to it.
I second this, as it was what my earlier post was talking about.
A DM should not say "I'm DM, go get me a sandwich!" any more than a player should say "I gave you a sandwhich, so where's my experience?"
But it is definitely acceptable, and perfectly nice, for a player to say "Hey DM, would you like a sandwhich?" or a DM to say "Hey player, I am a bit hungry... mind if I raid your fridge?" with no expectations involved.
Well, jake, I think you've managed to misunderstand everything in the thread. Congratulations.
Thank you. I do try.
DMPCs should not be necessary. Adventure/encounter design is supposed to be tailored to the abilities of the PCs. If the PCs don't have anybody good at finding traps, the answer is to not use a lot of traps, not put in a character to find them.
That sounds like a lot of work. Someone might need a sandwich afterwards.
Railroading is more than 'you have to go this way'. Railroading is 'you have to do exactly this'. Players know where the plot is; railroading is when there is only one way to arrive at the plot. Arbitrarily saying that a power or ritual that should work doesn't simply because it will bypass something is railroading. Having an impenetrable obstacle because you retroactively add ways to squelch the PCs abilities is railroading. An encounter hook should tell the PCs what needs to be done; let them figure out how they do it.
Shouldn't that be "railroading to Salla is more than..."? Clearly our definitions of what constitutes 'railroading' are different. We'll have to chaulk this one up to a misunderstanding.
No expectations on PC behavior is more a matter of hanging on stereotypes that the character may not be playing. Not all dwarves are drunks, not all elves are hippies, and no sane DM should have a game hinging on that.
Really? 'Cause I don't recall anyone saying that "The DM shall not hang on sterotypes that the character may not be playing, inc. alcoholic dwarves and hippie elves." I do recall something about bad DMs who prepare a nights entertainment for a group of friends on the assumption of what he or she thinks the players should do.
And yes, there is hospitality, but there's a big difference between being offered hospitality and thinking you're entitled to it.
And here we have the core of our disagreement. I believe that everyone you invite into your home deserves, or in other words, is entitled to, hospitality. Especially if they're doing something for you that is time consuming and often expensive. Like DMing. I believe the proper term is 'societal obligation.'
To start, if you are going to complain about what someone said, make sure you know what they are saying, as you will get things wrong by just going off on nerd rage, or some other emotional coloring of the words. Now I listed 3 criteria joined by an OR conditional, and said that the "complaints" mentioned all fell into one of these. Now as anyone with any Logic skills will tell you in order for an OR conditional to be true you only need for one of the conditions to be met, and it is perfectly fair for the rest of the conditions to be false. If you want to address any statements you need to negate it for all 3 criteria.
Are you for real? I don't know if you've noticed, but this is not a formal debating society with slavish adherence to Robert's Rules of Order. It's an online forum. And I will address your statements in any way I please. Interesting, tho, that you think you'd still be right, even if 2 out of 3 things you say is wrong. I am, however, glad that you recognize that you're at a minimum 66% wrong. That's very big of you. And "nerd rage"? After what you just wrote? Really?
A DM should not say "I'm DM, go get me a sandwich!" any more than a player should say "I gave you a sandwhich, so where's my experience?"But it is definitely acceptable, and perfectly nice, for a player to say "Hey DM, would you like a sandwhich?" or a DM to say "Hey player, I am a bit hungry... mind if I raid your fridge?" with no expectations involved.
Agreed on everything...except the no expectations part. Politeness should, of course, always be the rule. Maybe it's just a difference in societal norms, but when someone is doing something for you, like DMing, there is every expectation that you will return their goodwill with, at the very least, a sandwich. Economic situation permitting, of course.
Look, if you guys have had to deal with DMs who behave in the way you've described, then you have my sympathies. And I say that without the slightest bit of sarcasm. It sounds terrible. My experience has been different. You write 'Railroad' and mean impenetrable walls of force and 'cut scene' tactics. I read 'Railroad' and see players complaining that the hook wasn't personally compelling enough. The first is inexcusable and the second is just whining. If you'd been clearer or I'd have asked first, we could have avoided the whole thing. How about this, you go back to venting (and there's absolutely nothing wrong with that) but maybe be a little more specific about what you mean, and I'll go back to not jumping in unless I've taken the time to be sure we're talking about the same thing. Deal?
Thou shalt understand how encounters are intended to be built and not pit PCs against encounters too high for their level without scaling things.
If running a published adventure, thou shalt not follow the adventure verbatim.
Thou shalt not pander to players.
If, as a player you think you know it all? Step up to the challenge & DM the next game....
Thou shalt never, under any circumstances, try to push thy idea of how "D&D should be" onto thy players.
Change 'players' to 'DM' and this would be a rule that many DM's would love to see in the Player's Handbook. Just about every 'rules lawyer' player and 'armchair DM' I've run across implicitly feels their way of adjudicating the game is "the right way to play".
~r
DMPCs should not be necessary. Adventure/encounter design is supposed to be tailored to the abilities of the PCs. If the PCs don't have anybody good at finding traps, the answer is to not use a lot of traps, not put in a character to find them.
That sounds like a lot of work. Someone might need a sandwich afterwards.
please tell me this is a joke, this is not a defendable position.
Railroading is more than 'you have to go this way'. Railroading is 'you have to do exactly this'. Players know where the plot is; railroading is when there is only one way to arrive at the plot. Arbitrarily saying that a power or ritual that should work doesn't simply because it will bypass something is railroading. Having an impenetrable obstacle because you retroactively add ways to squelch the PCs abilities is railroading. An encounter hook should tell the PCs what needs to be done; let them figure out how they do it.
Shouldn't that be "railroading to Salla is more than..."? Clearly our definitions of what constitutes 'railroading' are different. We'll have to chaulk this one up to a misunderstanding.
Yes, with the distinction that salla's definition is closer the what the rest of us use.
No expectations on PC behavior is more a matter of hanging on stereotypes that the character may not be playing. Not all dwarves are drunks, not all elves are hippies, and no sane DM should have a game hinging on that.
Really? 'Cause I don't recall anyone saying that "The DM shall not hang on sterotypes that the character may not be playing, inc. alcoholic dwarves and hippie elves." I do recall something about bad DMs who prepare a nights entertainment for a group of friends on the assumption of what he or she thinks the players should do.
I'm sorry, but re-read the first post. This all originates from the realization of one of the basic truths of RPGs. The players will always suprise you, and you are better off letting them solve things their way. This was not about being a bad DM for trying to predict the players actions, it was about not trying to force their actions.
And yes, there is hospitality, but there's a big difference between being offered hospitality and thinking you're entitled to it.
And here we have the core of our disagreement. I believe that everyone you invite into your home deserves, or in other words, is entitled to, hospitality. Especially if they're doing something for you that is time consuming and often expensive. Like DMing. I believe the proper term is 'societal obligation.'
Maybe, offering them a drink over the night is acceptable, but the part of the 'societal obligation.' as you put it that you are ignoring is that you still ahev to be a good guest, and one part of being a good guest is not demanding things. you can ask and most people will say yes if the request if not major. But as soon as you demand you are crossing a line. also the resources of the host need ot be taken into account, if someone is making a comfortabel living and has spare income you can ask easily. but if someone is barely making enough to suport themselves or is on a fixed income (a state students are prone to be in by the way) then them might not be able to afford to offer you anything .
To start, if you are going to complain about what someone said, make sure you know what they are saying, as you will get things wrong by just going off on nerd rage, or some other emotional coloring of the words. Now I listed 3 criteria joined by an OR conditional, and said that the "complaints" mentioned all fell into one of these. Now as anyone with any Logic skills will tell you in order for an OR conditional to be true you only need for one of the conditions to be met, and it is perfectly fair for the rest of the conditions to be false. If you want to address any statements you need to negate it for all 3 criteria.
Are you for real? I don't know if you've noticed, but this is not a formal debating society with slavish adherence to Robert's Rules of Order. It's an online forum. And I will address your statements in any way I please.
While I agree with not requiring a full adherance ot proper debating techniques, I can still expect anyone who wants their posts to be taken as anything other then ramblings of an enraged nerd who feels the statement is attacking him directly to actually follow certain unoficial rules. Primarially amoung them being do not make wild acusations. Which you did by the way
Interesting, tho, that you think you'd still be right, even if 2 out of 3 things you say is wrong. I am, however, glad that you recognize that you're at a minimum 66% wrong. That's very big of you. And "nerd rage"? After what you just wrote? Really?
No no I would not be, in order to be wrong in such a way I would have to be claiming all 3 are true, which I did not.
As you keep bringing up the sandwich I have one last thing to say, The complaint is abotu the DM expecting food for his effert doing something that quite frankly he enjoys doing and is taking pleasure from, as if you do not you are not going to be offering to DM. Demanding food or other reimbursment is not acceptable amoung a group of friends, and in fact there is only one circumstance where it is acceptable, and that is when it is being done profesionally.
Also there is a couple other things against requesting food, in the middle of a session you are going to be talking quite often, and if is horrible manners to be talking with food in your mouth. If you are at someones house, he is normally making an effot in offering a place to play, as the chairs and table you are using were not free, and someone has to keep the play area clean, which is also effort, so be expecitng food, you are only putting extra strain on their resources. Also with requard to the whole good manners argument, it does not apply to the DM alone, if you have to offer something to one "guest" you have to offer it to the rest to be a "good host".
Hey Jake...yeah. You're right. You stepped in it. My turn to add stuff.
I've had a bad DM. He never once asked me to play my character a certain way, nor demanded food (or other payment). He didn't even railroad me. He has a good grasp of the rules. He even creates a complex and rich world in which to game. Well, perhaps he wasn't so much a "bad" DM, as one in which I could not agree. He had a habit of changing things unexpectedly and giving the party overpowering items.
No, the hallmark of a good DM is none of these rules. The hallmark of a good DM is one which makes the game fun. Even if you have to give him a sammich.
As for the DMPCs, really, those are called NPCs. They are used often, and are an integral part of D&D since its inception. They can be helpfull if done right.
As for the players as a group getting to decide the rules...no. It's okay for them to add their input, but the DM must, MUST make the rules. One chief, many indians. It's the way it works. It really doesn't work any other way. If a player keeps interupting the game to tell the DM he's wrong, well, how fun is that? Besides, the DM may have misunderstood a rule, but if it's minor, let it go. Keep the game moving.
I know it's hard for anyone who considers themselves to be a rules lawyer, as is the case for nearly anyone who would post in these forums, but the DM is law. If the DM's rules are too stupid, well, he'll lose his gaming group. If they're not, then the game will work wonderfully.
And here we have the core of our disagreement. I believe that everyone you invite into your home deserves, or in other words, is entitled to, hospitality. Especially if they're doing something for you that is time consuming and often expensive. Like DMing. I believe the proper term is 'societal obligation.'
There seems to be a misunderstanding between the two of you (sorry for only quoting one post, chalk it up to the suck that are the new forums) about social obligation.
Being the DM gives you no right at all to food. Being my friend, in my house, and hungry, that is what you gives you a right to be fed (at least in my opinion, I'm not going to let people go hungry in my own place 
) The same thing goes for the other players.
The difference might be minor, but this is where everyone here agrees, yet bickers about.
Agreed on everything...except the no expectations part. Politeness should, of course, always be the rule.
Then you in fact meant to say that you agree with me, as I was using "expectations," to refer to things expected above and beyond the norm of what one friend can expect from another.
A DM that thinks "I should grab something to eat... nah, I'll just have a sandwich at Jake's." Has the expectation that you are going to feed him... where a DM that thinks "Oh man, I can't believe I forgot to grab food before coming over!" and then ends up being offered, or asking politely for, a sandwich does not have the expectation that you are going to feed him. That was what I was meaning when saying "no expectations."
Look, if you guys have had to deal with DMs who behave in the way you've described, then you have my sympathies.
My original post was actually talking more about players I have had that somehow began to feel that doing anything beyond just showing up and playing entitled them to higher experience rewards... even though I had never rewarded anything like that in the past.
...and when I didn't give out those experience rewards, I'd better not only run the game, but host it, cook myself dinner, brink my own beverages, and make sure I had enough smokes to last the night - because these players, who I would always share anything of mine with no matter how little I had left (because I was raised that way), wouldn't give me so much as a couple puffs from one of their cigarettes during a game unless it got them some XP.
It took years to break them of that habit... but such is the risk when starting a group of former-players after they become your new friends after a move.
Entitlement is a funny thing.
Personally, I have little time for players who think that they are somehow doing the DM a favor by playing the campaign he's spent hours constructing. If you feel that way, don't play. It also riles me up to hear (read) someone saying that if the DM enjoys what he's doing, he should consider that reward enough in itself. That smacks of plain ingratitude. Whether the DM enjoys his job or not, he's spent hours crafting something for you to enjoy. Show some appreciation, whether it's a sammich, a drink, or an erotic foot massage.
...
...okay, not so much with the foot massage. But basic hospitality is the LEAST a hardworking DM should expect. And he shouldn't have to ask. 
That's my two cents, at any rate. Fortunately the guys I DM for are awesome, and they are constantly looking for ways to make my job easier, whether it's food-bringing, supply-buying or even DM'ing on other days to give me a break. It's the appreciation that makes it a joy, not the hours spent preparing.
My original post was actually talking more about players I have had that somehow began to feel that doing anything beyond just showing up and playing entitled them to higher experience rewards... even though I had never rewarded anything like that in the past....and when I didn't give out those experience rewards, I'd better not only run the game, but host it, cook myself dinner, brink my own beverages, and make sure I had enough smokes to last the night - because these players, who I would always share anything of mine with no matter how little I had left (because I was raised that way), wouldn't give me so much as a couple puffs from one of their cigarettes during a game unless it got them some XP.
It took years to break them of that habit... but such is the risk when starting a group of former-players after they become your new friends after a move.
Dude, that really bites. 
Hope you successfully broke them of it, because that's appalling behavior.
Dude, that really bites.Hope you successfully broke them of it, because that's appalling behavior.
I did - it took actually going over-board in the same way as the players were doing in order to show the last of them there was a problem...
The "final solution," was when a player insisted that he had to make his cigarettes last until monday - it was saturday evening and he had over half a pack left - and so he didn't want to give me one... another player offered him $0.25, and he then gave me a cigarette.
The next week every other player that smoked, myself included, had a fresh carton for themselves... and mr. doesn't share found himself in a room full of cigarettes with none that he could smoke.
Thankfully I now have a completely different group of players, and their "worst behavior," is that one of them sometimes shows up late without a warning - I am a much happier DM for it, and am actually giving all of my players Game Science dice which I will paint the numbers on myself, and making a dice bag for each of them as well, just to say thanks.
THou shalt ignore all of page one of this angsty thread.
its all well and good for you to be raised to give things away even at the cost of yourself, but to give things away in the wild would mean killing yourself. Read the book Dune, or just read once in a while, to understand why the natural state of man is not to share unless the individual has a surfeit. To ask someone to share when they are low on money and have only a pack left, then get butthurt is the epitomy of selfishness and self centeredness.
"He didnt share like I think he should, waaahh, I deserve whats his."
its all well and good for you to be raised to give things away even at the cost of yourself
Because giving away food when you have plenty, or frivolous items like cigarettes when you have any is a "cost."
but to give things away in the wild would mean killing yourself.
And your living room is just like the wild.
Read the book Dune, or just read once in a while
because you aren't reading right now.
To ask someone to share when they are low on money and have only a pack left, then get butthurt is the epitomy of selfishness and self centeredness.
because selfishness and self centeredness have nothing to do with the behavior of that player that expected me to feed him and provide him cigarettes whenever he had none, yet would not provide me a single cigarette when he had plenty (which he did, seeing as he only smoked about 4 a day and had about 12 left that "had to last him," a whoping 1 day and smattering of hours before he could get another pack.)
"He didnt share like I think he should, waaahh, I deserve whats his."
You know, I think that perfectly fits the guy that I was just talking about. Strange how you use it to imply that was my thought process... is English your second language? Are you an only child?
Thou shalt ignore all of page one of this angsty thread.
Too true. I swear, most of these complaints are easily misread, and many more come across as whiny players. Sure, there are really bad DMs out there, but you'd be better off trying the job yourself than coming up with a list of arbitrary rules for your DM to follow.
As for the "sandwhich" controversy, here's the unspoken rule we adhere by. Whoever provides the house isn't obligated to provide food, though it is appreciated. The rest have the responsibility of bringing snacks and/or soda. So far, it works just fine.
Any good DM know that beyond all the rules and guidelines, there is only one law that supersedes everything:
"It's the DM's job to make the game fun."
DMs don't need a huge list of things not to do. They need only remember that solid and time tested rule. Go back to your crying now.
My D&D Manifesto:
- The first job of everyone playing the game is to enjoy it. It is the whole point to the exercise. If you're not having fun why are you here?
- Be constructive. If you're not having fun try to do something about it. Don't be disruptive in the process, but don't expect someone else to come along and inflict fun upon you either. You are there to enjoy yourself - but not to be passively entertained, and not at the expense of others at the table. Your active participation is a necessary component - as is your maturity and restraint.
- Communicate DAMMIT! If you aren't having fun as a player, even though you may think it's very obvious, it's quite possible the DM or other players aren't going to know unless you say something. If you're not enjoying your experience as DM you don't have to put up with it. Nobody can force you to run a game, and if they try they don't deserve to be rewarded with your efforts. Now sometimes you end up DMing because everyone else wants to avoid the job more than you do, but remember that no one can take advantage of you without your permission. If you have a problem with ANYTHING in the game as far as rules, behavior of a player, etc. then SAY SO. ESP is not a standard human ability. The fact that ALL roleplaying message boards are inundated with a stream of, "What do I do about this player, or this DM?" shows that they're not talking to the people they should have in the first place.
- The day a DM can't deal with a helpful suggestion or even hard, sincere criticism from players about the campaign is the day the DM needs to give up the chair. The game does not revolve around stroking the DM's ego.
- A campaign is not absolutely under a DM's control. The PC's have to function with some fantasy approximation of a life. That means when characters take actions within the campaign the campaign needs to take those actions into account. Through their characters actions the players WILL make changes to the campaign. Therefore the DM cannot and should not attempt to force the campaign to go ONLY in predestined directions because the freedom that is necessary for player characters can and will foil prearranged plans.
- Things do not always go as the DM plans (see #5). For this reason among others the DM should not be seeking to dictate a story. The only way to get characters to tell the story the DM wants them to tell is to force them into it. Campaigns are about the characters. They weave stories created by the characters actions - not about characters simply being plugged into a story preordained by the DM. You must provide opportunity for the characters to do things but not constantly control what they try to do. DM's should keep their stinking noses out of EVERY decision that a player makes for a PC unless it's necessary to maintain order.
- Danger levels: The most satisfying combats are usually the ones that take characters right to the edge of death, with the very real danger of death being present, yet without actually crossing that threshold unnecessarily. Random numbers between 1 and 20, differences in gear, spells, skills, PC tactics, and the skill and ferocity with which the DM runs the opponents all make it impossible to plan perfectly. Combat encounters are never a sure thing regardless of how meticulously designed they are. Therefore when PC's are played right up to the edge of their capacities, or the DM attempts to run encounters right on the edge of disaster it is the most exciting place to be. But it is also is the most likely way for events to slip out of control. This is just something that needs to be kept in mind by everyone.
- A DM who truly sets out to deliberately kill the PC's has no business being a DM. The DM has at all times and in all ways the ability to kill the PC's whenever he bloody well feels like it. Simply having the next encounter be intentionally lethal is as easy as breathing. It is never the DM's job to intend to kill the characters because... well what kind of fun is that for anybody? A DM who gets his jollies by forcing players to lose favorite characters and create new ones that they know will stand no better chance of long-term survival doesn't deserve the patience his players undoubtedly have to give him. If the DM is running combats at the edge of danger where the fun is (see #7) then PC's will occasionally die anyway.
- Even given #'s 7 and 8 above it is still in everybody's interest for a campaign to have places, creatures, or encounters that the PC's are not actually able to defeat. It gives a campaign world a needed aura that it does not exist purely for the benefit of the PC's but has a life of its own. This is necessary for having any kind of verisimilitude and willing suspension of disbelief. Without it the world becomes a place where the dangers within it always scale precisely - and therefore unrealistically - to the PC's capabilities. There is never anything like a real "Canyon of Doom" or legendarily undefeatable monster if its power is always adjusted to what the PC's can immediately handle.
- Given #9, there are people and places that the PC's cannot and should not face. Part of the DM's job then is to make sure that the players and their characters are suitably warned about lethal dangers. That goes back to #8 - that it is never the DM's job to set out to kill the characters. It is the players job to pay attention to those warnings without anyone needing to break character. But if the characters ignore warnings (for whatever reason) the DM is then justified in applying what he actually knows to be lethal force in an encounter. Still doesn't mean he should, just that it can't really be held against him if he does. What this means for players is that the bull-headed notion of always fighting to the death, never retreating and never surrendering will ultimately lead only to a TPK which is no fun for anyone.
- Fair Play: It is generally in the interest of "fair play" for the DM to have the rest of his campaign world operating largely under the same rules that the PC's do. It's the "game" part of role-playing games. If the PC's can't do it then the NPC's generally shouldn't either. If the NPC's can do something then the PC's should generally be able to do it too - or at least attempt it. But to get fanatical about "being fair" in this regard is not in anyone's best interests either. It would mean that the DM is restricted in creating new and interesting challenges for the characters. While there are innumerable options within the existing rules, being allowed to create new rules, singular exceptions to rules, and even things that would not otherwise be possible under the known rules is a DM's prerogative. Only if the DM overuses or abuses this privilege are the players being cheated in any way. In short, the "rules" never have, and never will, contain the absolute answers for everything in a campaign. It falls under the 3.0 Players Handbook "Rule 0" clause - the DM may possibly have altered rules for his campaign without telling everyone. It may also be that the DM DOES need to explain some of those alterations up front. Fair play also applies between players. Characters are unequal - in ANY version of the rules - and CANNOT be made equal; not by balancing feats, skills and abilities; not by everyone having identical ability scores; not even by everyone using completely identical characters. Your enjoyment of the game should not rely on NOBODY being better than you, or having more fun than you at a given time. If it does then you're too immature for MY games. The DM needs only to try to make sure that the gap between one PC and another isn't TOO excessive. So, if you roll up a great character, don't object if you're asked to re-roll because it's TOO good.
- As a corollary to #11, the players and their characters are not always bound by "the rules" in what they can do (or at least in what they can attempt.) There simply isn't a rule for everything. One of a DM's biggest jobs is adjudication and adaptation of rules to the many situations that arise within a game. So by definition PC's can at least attempt to do things outside of the rules. In fact they generally get extra credit for such creativity (unless they make themselves a pest by constantly trying to do things not covered by the rules). To then deny the same privilege to the DM would be silly; to expect the DM to religiously follow rules when the players don't.
- The DM is not a slave to the dice. The dice don't run the game, the DM does. DM's use die rolls to assist in making decisions about what should happen in the game as well as dictating random results. I feel that at the very least the DM should be free to alter dice rolls that would negatively affect the PC's. A little of that goes a long way and just because you can doesn't mean that you should. To fudge things in the favor of the players is a useful tool to have when the random elements of game mechanics interfere with enjoyment of the game. As long as the sting of death is not being entirely removed as a result, there should be no taboo against fudging by the DM in the players favor. Fudging is your escape clause so only use it when as a DM you NEED to alter a situation gone horribly wrong. However, to arbitrarily adjust results against the PC's is not a good idea. Don't go there. It often serves no purpose but to enforce a preconceived conclusion that the DM has - that the DM wants to force the PC's to lose. Remember that as DM it is your job to lose to the PC's - A LOT. Slavish obedience to the dice and their results is actually an attempt to dodge the responsibilities of the DM as primary instigator of a fun, interesting, and exciting game. The DM already has vast latitude in deciding how many and how often dice rolls get made as well as many of the modifiers that would affect them so to then say that he must unwaveringly accept dice rolls only as-is or else he's being "unfair" is ludicrous. Similarly, there may be times when players should NOT have to roll to succeed regardless of what the rules say.
- The DM is certainly not required to roll his dice in the open and should actually be discouraged from doing so. There may be factors at work behind the screen that the players should not and need not be able to deduce by meta-game mathematics. Also, given #13, it prevents the DM from attempting to work things in the PC's favor without unnecessarily revealing that he's doing so. Players on the other hand should always roll their dice openly. Nothing is kept secret from the DM once it is put into play because the DM needs and still has adjudication and veto power - the precise details for which are not necessarily important for players to know. The only situation I can think of where a player can hide his rolls is as regards another player - but even then the DM still has authority to see all rolls, even if all the players don't.
- Differences of Opinion About Rules: Conventional wisdom suggests that whenever it is at all feasible rules-lawyering should be kept to a minimum during the game. The commonly accepted procedure is like objecting in a courtroom. Players should concisely state the substance of objections, the DM should make a ruling after listening to all sides, and if players take exception to the ruling it should be noted - but then play should proceed. If a DM is not out to screw the players but to simply provide the best game possible there are very few problems whose minutia could not wait until later (even until after the session is over) to hash out. Also, the DM is not perfect and not everything he rules on in a game should be considered a new law graven in stone. If they make mistakes and change their minds later it doesn't mean everything from earlier events needs to be "retconned." See #16 below.
- Retconning or Retcon is short for Retroactive Continuity. It means to make everything better by saying, "Okay, what really happened instead was this..." It is the cousin to the deus ex machina and the old childhood "do-over". When bad rulings, mistakes, oversights, meta-game complications, or bad/boring plots go REALLY bad this is one way to fix things. It always works, but it is never very satisfying. If things have not degenerated too far it may actually be better to handle things this way. But there comes a certain point where it is better to simply accept what has taken place no matter how stupidly or badly it was done and move forward. Better to take it in stride instead of trying to fix the past and all its myriad consequences, even when it means inconsistencies in applying rules. The kicker is that this level of screw-up always seems to involve a character's death making resolution of the problem more emotionally charged for players than would normally be the case.
- The DM is not there to oppose the players despite what you read in comics. He is there to provide the world for the characters, things for them to do within it, and to adjudicate their actions. If the DM sees himself as the opponent for the players - he wins. The only question then is how tedious and humiliating an experience he makes it for the players. He gets to make up anything and everything that the characters encounter. There is no ability for the players to trump that, so there can be no purely antagonistic position between players and DM without the DM simply being a gigantic ass.
- Characters die. They can - and should - occasionally die permanently. It is my firm belief that resurrection magic is in the game only because it is so easy for characters to die and playing on the edge of disaster is more fun and exciting (see #7). Unless permanent character death is more than just a possibility that never really occurs there is no fear of death and playing "on the edge" is meaningless. Players must accept the reality that their favorite characters can and will occasionally die permanently and that the DM can't predict when and who it will be. Very seldom will a character even be able to willingly go out in a blaze of glory. Such things are very hard to engineer.
- Players must learn the rules. Nobody needs to pass a rules knowledge test or memorize it all - not even the DM. But it's more than reasonable to expect that players read the entire Players Handbook and be able to understand it. Anyone new to the game needs to accept that they will need to do a lot of reading and put some effort into learning the game, and there is a lot of information they need to absorb right from the start. The basics of the game can be taught in short order, perhaps an hour or at most one game session. After a few sessions of play they should NOT require having basics repeatedly explained. The more time you spend playing the game as a new player the more you should be reading the rules, RE-reading the rules, and paying attention to the application of the rules by other players and their characters, not just your own. Players who can't be bothered to read and understand spells that their character casts, general combat rules, or the workings of skill systems should only be given so much leeway before a DM asks them to leave. Only if the DM informs players up front that the rules DON'T MATTER, or the player actually has learning disabilities is anyone excused from achieving a general, functional knowledge of the game.
- Regarding "Table Rules": Wherever the game session is taking place respect the host and the hosts property. Don't make a mess. Clean it up if you do. Behave. You are a GUEST so act accordingly. This includes being mindful of your own hygiene. Just because nobody tells you, "You stink!" doesn't mean that you don't, or that they don't really want to tell you so but are TOO polite to do so. Perhaps they just don't know how to do it properly. Perhaps they don't know how to tactfully tell you you're acting like a jerk, need a shower and clean shirt, have bad breath because you didn't brush, etc. Assist the host and/or DM in getting others to respect the Table Rules as well as yourself. This shouldn't be necessary to even list, but sadly it seems it too often is since the subject repeatedly pops up for discussion online. Any simple request made by the DM or other players that you bathe, brush your teeth, stop interrupting, stop being an ass, pay attention to the game instead of the phone/computer/book/your navel lint/etc. will NOT be considered an insult. It will be considered a FAVOR to you, and an opportunity to better yourself as a person if not as a player. A simple, direct apology and CORRECTION of the situation is all that should be necessary. Players are typically responsible for their food, drinks, etc. unless arrangements are made to the contrary. It is BASIC manners to reciprocate other players hospitality if/when it comes to be your turn to host the game. If you so desire or cannot afford to do so then advise people ahead of time so that other arrangements can be made.
- There are some rules which, despite being rules, are subject to wide interpretation. What alignment means to you and how it works is probably chief among these. Paladins and their obligations are related and a close second. How certain feats or abilities actually function. Or maybe just what you will and won't allow players/PC's to do. These and other things MUST be clarified at the start and perhaps even occasionally restated, even if you go by the book. Really, this should be assumed under #3 but communication (or lack thereof) is the single most common cause of ALL problems in D&D. The DM should never assume the players know what he wants, how he interprets things, or runs things. These things must be TOLD to players early and often to eliminate misunderstandings and arguments.
- Players are obliged to be fair and reasonable to other players, as well as for their characters to act likewise towards other PC's. There is no excuse for either you or your character to be an ass. NONE. The only exception being if the ALL the players are mature enough for their characters to be openly antagonistic of each other, and that the DM has made it clear from the start that such behavior is to be allowed, as well as how it will be kept in line. This is NOT an unreasonable restriction upon roleplaying but is, in fact, the very basic supposition of the game - an often radically diverse party of adventurers who nonetheless DO work together for money, glory, and other mutually agreeable ends. This means that right from the start as a player you are largely obliged to find reasons for your character to LIKE the other PC's, not antagonize them. It means that no player or character gets to dictate to the others the circumstances of their participation in the game or the party without MUTUAL consent, nor may an exclusive collection of two or more players/characters exert such control over one or more others. The DM is obliged to maintain this atmosphere of civility and cooperation, or if it has been agreed by all beforehand to allow crossing that line he is obliged to keep in and out-of-character attitudes and behavior from becoming disruptive.
- The DM is not required to allow a character to actually play out in the game anything that the player wants, especially if the player is about to do something really stupid or disruptive. E.g., if a character is about to kill either an insignificant or important NPC for no reason, then rather than allow it to happen and THEN get upset and annoyed the DM should STOP THE GAME and get clarification from the player before it ever takes place. If the players response is unsatisfactory he should DISALLOW the action from taking place at all and let play proceed from THAT point instead of proceeding from the point AFTER the disruptive act has been allowed to occur. Communication flows both ways and the DM does not need to act as if a DM shield is a "Wall of Fear and Ignorance" meant to keep players out. When a DM makes rulings there is no reason not to freely explain why he rules as he does, unless there is in-game information involved that PC's should not be privy to.
All of arguing about whether the DM gets free food or not, wow! In our sessions we've always put most of the onus on where we play. We used to play at my place so even the DM brought snacks a bunch.Our major problem with where we played was that my parents didn't want a bunch of people over, DM had a kid, player A had a tiny play-area. The whole time we played player B never piped up and it turned out she had a massive spare room at her residence... It took a year for us to find this out...
Now we have a place to play permanently (players A, B, and C have an apartment) but the DM and I still bring the food.
As for the other points:
Railroading=no.
DMPCs=maybe.
Making up rules=at player's consent.
After the manifesto - something more Zen:
The basic building-block unit of play is not the encounter, the storyline, the stat, or the roll - it is the choice.
Edit: In a very non-Zen way, I've qualified "unit" to make it clear I'm not talking about measuring a game in some strange way. More choices in a game is not necessarily the best thing (think more friends on Facebook and your social life . . . having 10,000 friends won't make you fun at parties). But having a choice to make is what means you are playing a game (as opposed to running a simulation or listening to a story).
My D&D Manifesto:
This.
Also, I feel moderately ashamed for having started this thread. Much drama.
shame... you all took a post intended to give some tips to DMs on running a game and turned it into a argument over if the DM gets a little snack from the experiance. Petty arguments seem to take over so many of the topics anymore, it's becoming a huge problem.
shame... you all took a post intended to give some tips to DMs on running a game and turned it into a argument over if the DM gets a little snack from the experiance. Petty arguments seem to take over so many of the topics anymore, it's becoming a huge problem.
Eh, that's the way the internet runs now. Everyone thinks they know best, and that's what makes it great.
Since everyone keeps mentioning food, I'll bring up some things:
1. I have been one of those "cheap" players that didn't want to contribute(in one group I played in).
2. I have no problem buying pizza for my current group, as I enjoy roleplaying with them much better than the last group.
3. DM's who arrogantly demand food are abusing their privileges as a friend, and as the "executive player" of a group.
4. I have never told my current DM to give me extra XP, just because I have bought food or drink for my group. I have asked him to grant one of my characters with a magic item (symbol of life +2/4th level cleric), because our DM has put the rest of the party on an XP scale to put us on equal ground.
5. In the end, gamers become friends/strong acquaintances no matter what side of the screen they're on. People are smart enough to know when amenities can be spared, and when times are tight that it's hard to accomodate guests.
6. Everyone have fun roleplaying, and stop worrying about the little things. Life is too short for that.
This.
Also, I feel moderately ashamed for having started this thread. Much drama.
Don't be. This was not your fault. This was mine. Mea culpa. Entirely. I once started a thread on using a 'con man' npc in a campaign. A few people contributed to it and things were going well until someone who objected to the whole idea derailed the thread. I was vastly annoyed. Fast forward a year, and I did the same thing to your thread. You wanted to start a discussion of things a DM shouldn't do. I shouldn't have butted in. Once again, my apologies.
Now don't get me wrong. I still stand by what I said. But I definitely shouldn't have said it. And if I absolutely couldn't keep my mouth shut, I absolutely could have gone about it in a far less confrontational way. I am particularly embarassed by my first post. It was completely out of line. It's one thing to feel compelled to correct bad information, advice, or poor rules interpretation. It's something else again to feel the need to pick a fight with people who may very well just need the opportunity to vent. Having been blessed with never having the experience of trying to game under truly bad DMs, I obviously lack the insight to truly appreciate what some have been through. Again, my aplogies.
If we can't, as a community, come here and openly discuss all aspects of gaming, even the unpleasant ones, without someone, no matter how well meaning, jumping on us with both rhetorical feet, then where are going to go? What safe place do we have? The world is an often hostile place for gamers. No need to make it any worse ourselves.
In an attempt to salvage this thread, and to try to make up for derailing it in the first place, I'd like to contribute the next rule:
DM's should never take it personally.
And on a more general note: Posting While Annoyed is like drunk dialing your ex. It may feel good at the time, but it's still a baaad idea.
My D&D Manifesto:
- The first job of everyone playing the game is to enjoy it. It is the whole point to the exercise. If you're not having fun why are you here?
- Be constructive. If you're not having fun try to do something about it. Don't be disruptive in the process, but don't expect someone else to come along and inflict fun upon you either. You are there to enjoy yourself - but not to be passively entertained, and not at the expense of others at the table. Your active participation is a necessary component - as is your maturity and restraint.
- Communicate DAMMIT! If you aren't having fun as a player, even though you may think it's very obvious, it's quite possible the DM or other players aren't going to know unless you say something. If you're not enjoying your experience as DM you don't have to put up with it. Nobody can force you to run a game, and if they try they don't deserve to be rewarded with your efforts. Now sometimes you end up DMing because everyone else wants to avoid the job more than you do, but remember that no one can take advantage of you without your permission. If you have a problem with ANYTHING in the game as far as rules, behavior of a player, etc. then SAY SO. ESP is not a standard human ability. The fact that ALL roleplaying message boards are inundated with a stream of, "What do I do about this player, or this DM?" shows that they're not talking to the people they should have in the first place.
- The day a DM can't deal with a helpful suggestion or even hard, sincere criticism from players about the campaign is the day the DM needs to give up the chair. The game does not revolve around stroking the DM's ego.
- A campaign is not absolutely under a DM's control. The PC's have to function with some fantasy approximation of a life. That means when characters take actions within the campaign the campaign needs to take those actions into account. Through their characters actions the players WILL make changes to the campaign. Therefore the DM cannot and should not attempt to force the campaign to go ONLY in predestined directions because the freedom that is necessary for player characters can and will foil prearranged plans.
- Things do not always go as the DM plans (see #5). For this reason among others the DM should not be seeking to dictate a story. The only way to get characters to tell the story the DM wants them to tell is to force them into it. Campaigns are about the characters. They weave stories created by the characters actions - not about characters simply being plugged into a story preordained by the DM. You must provide opportunity for the characters to do things but not constantly control what they try to do. DM's should keep their stinking noses out of EVERY decision that a player makes for a PC unless it's necessary to maintain order.
- Danger levels: The most satisfying combats are usually the ones that take characters right to the edge of death, with the very real danger of death being present, yet without actually crossing that threshold unnecessarily. Random numbers between 1 and 20, differences in gear, spells, skills, PC tactics, and the skill and ferocity with which the DM runs the opponents all make it impossible to plan perfectly. Combat encounters are never a sure thing regardless of how meticulously designed they are. Therefore when PC's are played right up to the edge of their capacities, or the DM attempts to run encounters right on the edge of disaster it is the most exciting place to be. But it is also is the most likely way for events to slip out of control. This is just something that needs to be kept in mind by everyone.
- A DM who truly sets out to deliberately kill the PC's has no business being a DM. The DM has at all times and in all ways the ability to kill the PC's whenever he bloody well feels like it. Simply having the next encounter be intentionally lethal is as easy as breathing. It is never the DM's job to intend to kill the characters because... well what kind of fun is that for anybody? A DM who gets his jollies by forcing players to lose favorite characters and create new ones that they know will stand no better chance of long-term survival doesn't deserve the patience his players undoubtedly have to give him. If the DM is running combats at the edge of danger where the fun is (see #7) then PC's will occasionally die anyway.
- Even given #'s 7 and 8 above it is still in everybody's interest for a campaign to have places, creatures, or encounters that the PC's are not actually able to defeat. It gives a campaign world a needed aura that it does not exist purely for the benefit of the PC's but has a life of its own. This is necessary for having any kind of verisimilitude and willing suspension of disbelief. Without it the world becomes a place where the dangers within it always scale precisely - and therefore unrealistically - to the PC's capabilities. There is never anything like a real "Canyon of Doom" or legendarily undefeatable monster if its power is always adjusted to what the PC's can immediately handle.
- Given #9, there are people and places that the PC's cannot and should not face. Part of the DM's job then is to make sure that the players and their characters are suitably warned about lethal dangers. That goes back to #8 - that it is never the DM's job to set out to kill the characters. It is the players job to pay attention to those warnings without anyone needing to break character. But if the characters ignore warnings (for whatever reason) the DM is then justified in applying what he actually knows to be lethal force in an encounter. Still doesn't mean he should, just that it can't really be held against him if he does. What this means for players is that the bull-headed notion of always fighting to the death, never retreating and never surrendering will ultimately lead only to a TPK which is no fun for anyone.
- Fair Play: It is generally in the interest of "fair play" for the DM to have the rest of his campaign world operating largely under the same rules that the PC's do. It's the "game" part of role-playing games. If the PC's can't do it then the NPC's generally shouldn't either. If the NPC's can do something then the PC's should generally be able to do it too - or at least attempt it. But to get fanatical about "being fair" in this regard is not in anyone's best interests either. It would mean that the DM is restricted in creating new and interesting challenges for the characters. While there are innumerable options within the existing rules, being allowed to create new rules, singular exceptions to rules, and even things that would not otherwise be possible under the known rules is a DM's prerogative. Only if the DM overuses or abuses this privilege are the players being cheated in any way. In short, the "rules" never have, and never will, contain the absolute answers for everything in a campaign. It falls under the 3.0 Players Handbook "Rule 0" clause - the DM may possibly have altered rules for his campaign without telling everyone. It may also be that the DM DOES need to explain some of those alterations up front. Fair play also applies between players. Characters are unequal - in ANY version of the rules - and CANNOT be made equal; not by balancing feats, skills and abilities; not by everyone having identical ability scores; not even by everyone using completely identical characters. Your enjoyment of the game should not rely on NOBODY being better than you, or having more fun than you at a given time. If it does then you're too immature for MY games. The DM needs only to try to make sure that the gap between one PC and another isn't TOO excessive. So, if you roll up a great character, don't object if you're asked to re-roll because it's TOO good.
- As a corollary to #11, the players and their characters are not always bound by "the rules" in what they can do (or at least in what they can attempt.) There simply isn't a rule for everything. One of a DM's biggest jobs is adjudication and adaptation of rules to the many situations that arise within a game. So by definition PC's can at least attempt to do things outside of the rules. In fact they generally get extra credit for such creativity (unless they make themselves a pest by constantly trying to do things not covered by the rules). To then deny the same privilege to the DM would be silly; to expect the DM to religiously follow rules when the players don't.
- The DM is not a slave to the dice. The dice don't run the game, the DM does. DM's use die rolls to assist in making decisions about what should happen in the game as well as dictating random results. I feel that at the very least the DM should be free to alter dice rolls that would negatively affect the PC's. A little of that goes a long way and just because you can doesn't mean that you should. To fudge things in the favor of the players is a useful tool to have when the random elements of game mechanics interfere with enjoyment of the game. As long as the sting of death is not being entirely removed as a result, there should be no taboo against fudging by the DM in the players favor. Fudging is your escape clause so only use it when as a DM you NEED to alter a situation gone horribly wrong. However, to arbitrarily adjust results against the PC's is not a good idea. Don't go there. It often serves no purpose but to enforce a preconceived conclusion that the DM has - that the DM wants to force the PC's to lose. Remember that as DM it is your job to lose to the PC's - A LOT. Slavish obedience to the dice and their results is actually an attempt to dodge the responsibilities of the DM as primary instigator of a fun, interesting, and exciting game. The DM already has vast latitude in deciding how many and how often dice rolls get made as well as many of the modifiers that would affect them so to then say that he must unwaveringly accept dice rolls only as-is or else he's being "unfair" is ludicrous. Similarly, there may be times when players should NOT have to roll to succeed regardless of what the rules say.
- The DM is certainly not required to roll his dice in the open and should actually be discouraged from doing so. There may be factors at work behind the screen that the players should not and need not be able to deduce by meta-game mathematics. Also, given #13, it prevents the DM from attempting to work things in the PC's favor without unnecessarily revealing that he's doing so. Players on the other hand should always roll their dice openly. Nothing is kept secret from the DM once it is put into play because the DM needs and still has adjudication and veto power - the precise details for which are not necessarily important for players to know. The only situation I can think of where a player can hide his rolls is as regards another player - but even then the DM still has authority to see all rolls, even if all the players don't.
- Differences of Opinion About Rules: Conventional wisdom suggests that whenever it is at all feasible rules-lawyering should be kept to a minimum during the game. The commonly accepted procedure is like objecting in a courtroom. Players should concisely state the substance of objections, the DM should make a ruling after listening to all sides, and if players take exception to the ruling it should be noted - but then play should proceed. If a DM is not out to screw the players but to simply provide the best game possible there are very few problems whose minutia could not wait until later (even until after the session is over) to hash out. Also, the DM is not perfect and not everything he rules on in a game should be considered a new law graven in stone. If they make mistakes and change their minds later it doesn't mean everything from earlier events needs to be "retconned." See #16 below.
- Retconning or Retcon is short for Retroactive Continuity. It means to make everything better by saying, "Okay, what really happened instead was this..." It is the cousin to the deus ex machina and the old childhood "do-over". When bad rulings, mistakes, oversights, meta-game complications, or bad/boring plots go REALLY bad this is one way to fix things. It always works, but it is never very satisfying. If things have not degenerated too far it may actually be better to handle things this way. But there comes a certain point where it is better to simply accept what has taken place no matter how stupidly or badly it was done and move forward. Better to take it in stride instead of trying to fix the past and all its myriad consequences, even when it means inconsistencies in applying rules. The kicker is that this level of screw-up always seems to involve a character's death making resolution of the problem more emotionally charged for players than would normally be the case.
- The DM is not there to oppose the players despite what you read in comics. He is there to provide the world for the characters, things for them to do within it, and to adjudicate their actions. If the DM sees himself as the opponent for the players - he wins. The only question then is how tedious and humiliating an experience he makes it for the players. He gets to make up anything and everything that the characters encounter. There is no ability for the players to trump that, so there can be no purely antagonistic position between players and DM without the DM simply being a gigantic ass.
- Characters die. They can - and should - occasionally die permanently. It is my firm belief that resurrection magic is in the game only because it is so easy for characters to die and playing on the edge of disaster is more fun and exciting (see #7). Unless permanent character death is more than just a possibility that never really occurs there is no fear of death and playing "on the edge" is meaningless. Players must accept the reality that their favorite characters can and will occasionally die permanently and that the DM can't predict when and who it will be. Very seldom will a character even be able to willingly go out in a blaze of glory. Such things are very hard to engineer.
- Players must learn the rules. Nobody needs to pass a rules knowledge test or memorize it all - not even the DM. But it's more than reasonable to expect that players read the entire Players Handbook and be able to understand it. Anyone new to the game needs to accept that they will need to do a lot of reading and put some effort into learning the game, and there is a lot of information they need to absorb right from the start. The basics of the game can be taught in short order, perhaps an hour or at most one game session. After a few sessions of play they should NOT require having basics repeatedly explained. The more time you spend playing the game as a new player the more you should be reading the rules, RE-reading the rules, and paying attention to the application of the rules by other players and their characters, not just your own. Players who can't be bothered to read and understand spells that their character casts, general combat rules, or the workings of skill systems should only be given so much leeway before a DM asks them to leave. Only if the DM informs players up front that the rules DON'T MATTER, or the player actually has learning disabilities is anyone excused from achieving a general, functional knowledge of the game.
- Regarding "Table Rules": Wherever the game session is taking place respect the host and the hosts property. Don't make a mess. Clean it up if you do. Behave. You are a GUEST so act accordingly. This includes being mindful of your own hygiene. Just because nobody tells you, "You stink!" doesn't mean that you don't, or that they don't really want to tell you so but are TOO polite to do so. Perhaps they just don't know how to do it properly. Perhaps they don't know how to tactfully tell you you're acting like a jerk, need a shower and clean shirt, have bad breath because you didn't brush, etc. Assist the host and/or DM in getting others to respect the Table Rules as well as yourself. This shouldn't be necessary to even list, but sadly it seems it too often is since the subject repeatedly pops up for discussion online. Any simple request made by the DM or other players that you bathe, brush your teeth, stop interrupting, stop being an ass, pay attention to the game instead of the phone/computer/book/your navel lint/etc. will NOT be considered an insult. It will be considered a FAVOR to you, and an opportunity to better yourself as a person if not as a player. A simple, direct apology and CORRECTION of the situation is all that should be necessary. Players are typically responsible for their food, drinks, etc. unless arrangements are made to the contrary. It is BASIC manners to reciprocate other players hospitality if/when it comes to be your turn to host the game. If you so desire or cannot afford to do so then advise people ahead of time so that other arrangements can be made.
- There are some rules which, despite being rules, are subject to wide interpretation. What alignment means to you and how it works is probably chief among these. Paladins and their obligations are related and a close second. How certain feats or abilities actually function. Or maybe just what you will and won't allow players/PC's to do. These and other things MUST be clarified at the start and perhaps even occasionally restated, even if you go by the book. Really, this should be assumed under #3 but communication (or lack thereof) is the single most common cause of ALL problems in D&D. The DM should never assume the players know what he wants, how he interprets things, or runs things. These things must be TOLD to players early and often to eliminate misunderstandings and arguments.
- Players are obliged to be fair and reasonable to other players, as well as for their characters to act likewise towards other PC's. There is no excuse for either you or your character to be an ass. NONE. The only exception being if the ALL the players are mature enough for their characters to be openly antagonistic of each other, and that the DM has made it clear from the start that such behavior is to be allowed, as well as how it will be kept in line. This is NOT an unreasonable restriction upon roleplaying but is, in fact, the very basic supposition of the game - an often radically diverse party of adventurers who nonetheless DO work together for money, glory, and other mutually agreeable ends. This means that right from the start as a player you are largely obliged to find reasons for your character to LIKE the other PC's, not antagonize them. It means that no player or character gets to dictate to the others the circumstances of their participation in the game or the party without MUTUAL consent, nor may an exclusive collection of two or more players/characters exert such control over one or more others. The DM is obliged to maintain this atmosphere of civility and cooperation, or if it has been agreed by all beforehand to allow crossing that line he is obliged to keep in and out-of-character attitudes and behavior from becoming disruptive.
- The DM is not required to allow a character to actually play out in the game anything that the player wants, especially if the player is about to do something really stupid or disruptive. E.g., if a character is about to kill either an insignificant or important NPC for no reason, then rather than allow it to happen and THEN get upset and annoyed the DM should STOP THE GAME and get clarification from the player before it ever takes place. If the players response is unsatisfactory he should DISALLOW the action from taking place at all and let play proceed from THAT point instead of proceeding from the point AFTER the disruptive act has been allowed to occur. Communication flows both ways and the DM does not need to act as if a DM shield is a "Wall of Fear and Ignorance" meant to keep players out. When a DM makes rulings there is no reason not to freely explain why he rules as he does, unless there is in-game information involved that PC's should not be privy to.
Worth quoting in its entirety. I need my hand clapping smilie back.
All of arguing about whether the DM gets free food or not, wow! In our sessions we've always put most of the onus on where we play. We used to play at my place so even the DM brought snacks a bunch.Our major problem with where we played was that my parents didn't want a bunch of people over, DM had a kid, player A had a tiny play-area. The whole time we played player B never piped up and it turned out she had a massive spare room at her residence... It took a year for us to find this out...
Now we have a place to play permanently (players A, B, and C have an apartment) but the DM and I still bring the food.
As for the other points:
Railroading=no.
DMPCs=maybe.
Making up rules=at player's consent.
This whole food thread is just plain wacky. Would you forgive me if I assume we're talking about young, college aged ladies and gentlemen, who sometimes have to scrounge for food?
I host my campaigns in my home; my wife is one of our players. Our group always sits down to lunch before the game; my wife prepares a main dish and a few other things, and our players each bring a side item. It's an awesome way to start our game day, and prepares a much better atmosphere than extorting PC's for sandwiches. Of course, I see myself as a Host, Guide, and Entertainer. I get at least as much from the D&D experience as my players; the idea that it's some chore that I should get paid for is just plain sad.
Full props for the manifesto, very good indeed!
Similarly an excellent point made by Jake, and possibly the most important lesson a budding DM needs to learn:
"The DM shall not take it personally."
It's hard but true, as anyone who has watched a party completely bypass, trivialize or otherwise destroy hours of hard work in the space of a few moments can attest to. *grins*
> Thou shalt not railroad. If you want to make characters
> do things, write a book.
The DMG does actually include that: P101, second entry under 'Poor Structure'.
The first job of everyone playing the game is to enjoy it. It is the whole point to the exercise. If you're not having fun why are you here?
No. Absolutely wrong. The first job of every person involved is to make sure *everyone else* has fun.
If you're not having fun, either *they're* ****ing up or *you* are in the wrong game. Either way, that's easy to fix. So fix it.
The DM is certainly not required to roll his dice in the open and should actually be discouraged from doing so.
I only slightly disagree with this. I've actually found that rolling in the open makes the rest of my fudging *easier* when I want to do it.
But the rest is good advice!
My D&D Manifesto:
- The day a DM can't deal with a helpful suggestion or even hard, sincere criticism from players about the campaign is the day the DM needs to give up the chair. The game does not revolve around stroking the DM's ego.
- A DM who truly sets out to deliberately kill the PC's has no business being a DM. The DM has at all times and in all ways the ability to kill the PC's whenever he bloody well feels like it. Simply having the next encounter be intentionally lethal is as easy as breathing. It is never the DM's job to intend to kill the characters because... well what kind of fun is that for anybody? A DM who gets his jollies by forcing players to lose favorite characters and create new ones that they know will stand no better chance of long-term survival doesn't deserve the patience his players undoubtedly have to give him. If the DM is running combats at the edge of danger where the fun is (see #7) then PC's will occasionally die anyway.
The same goes for players.
A DM who sets out ot make an intentionally lethal encounter might want people (and by want I mean as a DM that wants players to keep playing, which they cant do if their PC dies) to run from said encounter, or think without mindlessly chariging into a room of death. wheres you logic now? If it fits the campaign, and the PC's aren't supposed to run into it, where's the issue when they act dumb?
We also need to be clear on what "intent to kill PC" means. Intending to kill PC by using monsters to their best ability in order to give the PCs a tough and interesting fight (there is no interest nor toughness about a fight that has no intent to win, every sport, even though it doesnt come to killing, realizes this basic precept of fun, that the intent of the other side should be to win, otherwise its hollow) is not the equivalent of making a campaign that WILL kill a character if they take even one step in any direction. Now, I myself love playing campaigns that have brutally deadly rules, such as encounters of L+4, and traps that instantly kill. Does that suddenly make any DM who runs like this perfectly right, and all other DMs who run a "PCs unkillable" campagin wrong? No, its about the preference of the players just as much. The problem here is that people who play in the latter way dont consider those who play and enjoy the former way, and as such when they meet a DM who is like that, they immediately call that DM a horrible DM. So a difference of personal taste for a thread about how DMs should run the game? Sounds like instafail to me, anyway I think the more PCs die, the more people will stop acting stupid - or they'll give up playing and the problem of a player that doesn't care about playing the game will be solved.
The same goes for players.
A DM who sets out ot make an intentionally lethal encounter might want people (and by want I mean as a DM that wants players to keep playing, which they cant do if their PC dies) to run from said encounter, or think without mindlessly chariging into a room of death. wheres you logic now? If it fits the campaign, and the PC's aren't supposed to run into it, where's the issue when they act dumb?
That is mostly covered in further points of the same "manifesto", and those parts seemed reasonable to me . . . are you responding to just a fragment?
Just responding to responses about my Manifesto in general. Clearly, some of it DOES state my personal opinion as to how to play/run the game as opposed to obvious, unarguable fact (though the latter is mostly what is required. Yet that is THE POINT of providing players with such a manifesto. When I give it to players it actually comes with several paragraphs of explanation as to WHY I originally wrote it and what I'm attempting to achieve with it.
It was written because despite the fact that I'd played and DM'd with some players for a decade or better situations arose in game where either they just didn't get it or I had only assumed that they understood my motives and actions but I'd never ACTUALLY explained where I was coming from. The goal then is to provide ANY player with an immediately available, easily understood, and as concise as possible explanation of what everyone at the table should expect of everyone else.
You may slightly disagree with certain parts, or you might think some section could be phrased better - but THEN DO JUST THAT. Alter the Manifesto to suit YOUR beliefs and particularly for DM's ENSURE that your players know it and agree to abide by it. Hell, I even suggested that if you feel it necessary have them SIGN it.
In altering it, however, I would advise that you CONTEMPLATE the changes extensively, discuss online (or even better - with your players), reread what you write. Keep it close to a general statement of philosophy and NOT a detailed accumulation of house rules. Actual House Rules should go into a seperate document. The Manifesto is intended to ESTABLISH and MAINTAIN communication at the game table, not act as a magnet for arguments about details of rules.
Otherwise, I'm happy to see it is actually having its desired effect.
No. Absolutely wrong. The first job of every person involved is to make sure *everyone else* has fun.If you're not having fun, either *they're* ****ing up or *you* are in the wrong game. Either way, that's easy to fix. So fix it.
I actually considered that sort of phrasing, but as stated further down in the Manifesto you are NOT there to have fun INFLICTED upon you. It is not PASSIVE entertainment like watching TV or reading a book. I don't believe it is possible to ENSURE that everyone else has fun and for players the best way to keep the DM happy is to BE happy with the game - show the DM that the effort that IS required is worth it. And some people WILL be grumpy, uncooperative sticks-in-the-mud, either by habit or just occasional circumstance. It is NOT the job of the others at the table to then set aside their own enjoyment to inflict enjoyment on the irritant.
The DM should simply be expected to just do his best job at providing an entertaining game. He can't possibly guarantee that players will always enjoy it or that they will enjoy it equally. You can and should try but you just can't argue with the variation of Lincoln's quote - you can't please all the people all the time. If you as a player DON'T enjoy it, then as it says DO SOMETHING about it. Find a game more suited to your play style. Create a new character with a concept that might fit better into the game. COMMUNICATE and offer feedback to the DM and other players about what you dislike or would like better. Perhaps even just enjoy the game for what it IS if getting the most enjoyment out of it for YOU means reduced enjoyment of the game for everyone else.
A DM who truly sets out to deliberately kill the PC's has no business being a DM. The DM has at all times and in all ways the ability to kill the PC's whenever he bloody well feels like it. Simply having the next encounter be intentionally lethal is as easy as breathing. It is never the DM's job to intendto kill the characters because... well what kind of fun is that for anybody? A DM who gets his jollies by forcing players to lose favorite characters and create new ones that they know will stand no better chance of long-term survival doesn't deserve the patience his players undoubtedly have to give him. If the DM is running combats at the edge of danger where the fun is (see #7) then PC's will occasionally die anyway.
Ha ha, I once mentioned to my DM that I wouldn't mind if my cleric was killed(he rocked at healing, but COULDN'T do anything else) and... slice. tTe BBEG (a assasin) death attacks the cleric, I failed the save. I made a new cleric who was useful. A deliberate kill, but I was happy about it.
I always wondered about the "No DMPC" thing I've seen here and there on these forums. I don't have experience playing under a DM that used one--maybe an NPC accompaniment on one or two adventures/fights, but that's about the extent of it. However, I have been in the situation a couple times where our group was 4-5 people who wanted to be PCs, and no one who wanted to be DM especially. I think in that particular situation, a DMPC would have been more than fine, if the alternative is someone having to do a job they don't want to do. (Instead what we did was play one-shot board games for a few weeks until someone felt up to starting a campaign.)
I always wondered about the "No DMPC" thing I've seen here and there on these forums. I don't have experience playing under a DM that used one--maybe an NPC accompaniment on one or two adventures/fights, but that's about the extent of it. However, I have been in the situation a couple times where our group was 4-5 people who wanted to be PCs, and no one who wanted to be DM especially. I think in that particular situation, a DMPC would have been more than fine, if the alternative is someone having to do a job they don't want to do. (Instead what we did was play one-shot board games for a few weeks until someone felt up to starting a campaign.)
that's the situation where DMPCs tend to go wrong. If the DM really invests in his character he'll have a tendency to overly favor his own character.
DMPCs work best when the DM isn't wanting to play a DMPC, but rather the group needs one to help out.
My approach to DMPCs is to give the players complete control of them during battles, so they can walk into traps and be as important or menial as the player desires.
that's the situation where DMPCs tend to go wrong. If the DM really invests in his character he'll have a tendency to overly favor his own character.
DMPCs work best when the DM isn't wanting to play a DMPC, but rather the group needs one to help out.
So you'd prefer someone just be DM when they don't want to, and/or no one gets to play?
that's the situation where DMPCs tend to go wrong. If the DM really invests in his character he'll have a tendency to overly favor his own character.
DMPCs work best when the DM isn't wanting to play a DMPC, but rather the group needs one to help out.
So you'd prefer someone just be DM when they don't want to, and/or no one gets to play?
Well, the person presumably still doesn't want to DM, plus they would have a PC to run. It already won't be the best possible game . . . I guess if it's the only way you can play. My own groups used to have the opposite problem - so many of us wanting to take the DM chair, often had to wait a year or longer to get a turn . . .
Well, the person presumably still doesn't want to DM, plus they would have a PC to run. It already won't be the best possible game . . . I guess if it's the only way you can play. My own groups used to have the opposite problem - so many of us wanting to take the DM chair, often had to wait a year or longer to get a turn . . .
Admittedly this isn't a problem I've had in the era of 4e. It was more of an issue in my group 5-6 years ago, there was one guy that enjoyed DMing, but even he got kinda tired of it after a while such that he'd go about 6months on, 6months off, and the rest of us that tried our hands at it got tired of it even more quickly than that.
I suppose I just see the 'DMPC' thing as one of the more benign of the 'potentially aggravating things DMs can do,' and it's entirely possible for it to be done in a non-annoying fashion. The real problem is "spotlight-stealing DMPCs," not just DMPCs in and of themselves. The game needs to be fun for the DM too, and if the DMPC contributes to the DM's fun without diminishing the players' (or with only superficially diminishing the players'), then it's a-ok with me.