Quote from: James Gillen;680641Indeed.

JG

Oh, she did in her way.

Quote from: James Gillen;680641Indeed.

JG

You know why Stevie Wonder can't read?

'cos he's black.

Quote from: deadDMwalking;680413Let's not create a false dichotomy.  There's clearly a spectrum; on the one hand the DM cloaks everything in mystery and players can't know how things will vary from one moment to the other; on the other hand, everything is known to (or can be known by) the players and no room for mystery exists.  

A good GM (in my opinion) will follow established rules and when something doesn't work as expected, there will be a good reason for it that will eventually be revealed.  If the orcs are immune to weapons, for instance, I'm going to find out that there is a blessed oil of Grummesh or something; if the DM is just being a dick I hope to find that out as well.  

The fact is, we're all humans, and most DMs have abused their power at one time or another.  Call it a learning experience.  Hopefully they don't do it anymore.  But in the case that it happens, ensuring that the players can find out about it and respond with a request that the DM justify seemingly impossible game elements is my preference.

Some mysteries should be solvable by the players. A game with only questions and no answers gets tedious. Some unknown elements might take longer than others to discover.

As far as monster capabilities, the extent of player knowledge only needs to cover whatever lore the characters know or have experienced firsthand.
The monsters in a published volume are suggestions only and can be changed/altered to fit into a particular campaign. The GM is under no obligation to "justify" any changes from a published creature to one used in the campaign.

Quote from: deadDMwalking;680413Let's not create a false dichotomy.  There's clearly a spectrum; on the one hand the DM cloaks everything in mystery and players can't know how things will vary from one moment to the other; on the other hand, everything is known to (or can be known by) the players and no room for mystery exists.  

A good GM (in my opinion) will follow established rules and when something doesn't work as expected, there will be a good reason for it that will eventually be revealed.  If the orcs are immune to weapons, for instance, I'm going to find out that there is a blessed oil of Grummesh or something; if the DM is just being a dick I hope to find that out as well.  

The fact is, we're all humans, and most DMs have abused their power at one time or another.  Call it a learning experience.  Hopefully they don't do it anymore.  But in the case that it happens, ensuring that the players can find out about it and respond with a request that the DM justify seemingly impossible game elements is my preference.

If I was dming and a creature was immune to weapons, most veteran players would know of a few ways that might happen. I don't think the gm should be obligated to explain exactly why. Might be a gargoyle masked by an illussion to look like an orc. A wizard cast stoneskin on an orc. Orc drank potion of invulnerability; probably plenty of possibilities.

If a player was freaking out over it, I might tell them what happened later.

Its a bit like a magician explaining his secrets.

Quote from: Exploderwizard;680732Some mysteries should be solvable by the players. A game with only questions and no answers gets tedious. Some unknown elements might take longer than others to discover.

As far as monster capabilities, the extent of player knowledge only needs to cover whatever lore the characters know or have experienced firsthand.
The monsters in a published volume are suggestions only and can be changed/altered to fit into a particular campaign. The GM is under no obligation to "justify" any changes from a published creature to one used in the campaign.

This is the way I've always played. I'll make up new monsters, or revise existing ones on the spot. These trolls hang off stalactites and spit acid. Deal with it.

Quote from: deadDMwalking;680413The fact is, we're all humans, and most DMs have abused their power at one time or another.

What exactly, in your mind, constitutes an abuse of the DM's power?

Quote from: deadDMwalking;680413But in the case that it happens, ensuring that the players can find out about it and respond with a request that the DM justify seemingly impossible game elements is my preference.

I'll let Kyle Aaron handle this one for me.

Quote from: Kyle Aaron;679268When you're a shit roleplayer, gamer and DM, you need rules for everything.

Quote from: Haffrung;680748This is the way I've always played. I'll make up new monsters, or revise existing ones on the spot. These trolls hang off stalactites and spit acid. Deal with it.

No no...you must only use monsters that the players can know all the stats beforehand and easily dispatch them with uber builds!!!!


What were you thinking!!!

Quote from: Black Vulmea;680759What exactly, in your mind, constitutes an abuse of the DM's power?


I'll let Kyle Aaron handle this one for me.

Interesting question.

I guess I would define GM abuse of power as 'doing stupid shit for stupid reasons' Like, saving his pet npc. Punishing players for leaving his railroad.
Ignoring AC because the gm feels a character has not taken enough damage lately, stuff like that.

Quote from: Bill;680763No no...you must only use monsters that the players can know all the stats beforehand and easily dispatch them with uber builds!!!!


What were you thinking!!!

When I first started playing Next, one of our battles was against a group of orcs.  In Next, orcs have this relentless ability, which means that if they drop to 0 HP from damage that wasn't from one hit, they kept fighting until the end of their next turn.

We did not know this.

After dealing 25+ points an orc and it didn't fall, I turned to my companion and said, "We are in serious trouble mate!"

Of course, after the next turn it died on its own, which made us all look confused.  Only later did we find out about this ability, and therefore not to keep attacking it over and over while it's buddies remained unscathed.

That was an excellent session.  When things are new again?  Love it.

Quote from: Bill;680763No no...you must only use monsters that the players can know all the stats beforehand and easily dispatch them with uber builds!!!!


What were you thinking!!!

The notion that players know monster stats, and that it's dickish for the DM to change them, is so outlandish to me that I scarcely know what to make of it. If this is really a thing, and not just forum bullshit, it turns the whole game on its head. I'd be less shocked to learn a lot of people play D&D in swimming pools, or run parties of PCs made up of barnyard animals.

Quote from: Haffrung;680777The notion that players know monster stats, and that it's dickish for the DM to change them, is so outlandish to me that I scarcely know what to make of it. If this is really a thing, and not just forum bullshit, it turns the whole game on its head. I'd be less shocked to learn a lot of people play D&D in swimming pools, or run parties of PCs made up of barnyard animals.

It's a real thing, and outside of D&D it was somewhat common even twenty years ago.  "Sean is not allowed to bring his own Earthdawn book" was a houserule at my table back in 96, for example.

Quote from: Black Vulmea;680759What exactly, in your mind, constitutes an abuse of the DM's power?

In my opinion (though you didn't ask me):  Forgetting that the DM's job is to make a fun (however you define that) game for the whole table.

When your grand story becomes more important than the players, you're going to be a dick.  It's inevitable.

When your idea of "how your world works" becomes more important than the players, you're going to end up a dick (now, in fairness, presenting a consistent world *adds to* the enjoyment of people).

When your NPCs are more important to you than the PCs, you're going to be a dick.

When how tough your encounters are is more important to you than the players, you're going to be a dick.

Basically, any time that you think the players are there for your amusement, rather than the other way around, you're going to be a dick.

Being a DM is a lot like being a dom in a BDSM relationship.  On the surface, it appears that you have the power, but in reality everything you do is for the other person/people.

Quote from: robiswrong;680832Basically, any time that you think the players are there for your amusement, rather than the other way around, you're going to be a dick.

Technically not the way I see it. Everyone at the table should be doing their utmost to make sure all of the group is having a good time. This applies to DM and players equally.

Quote from: robiswrong;680832Being a DM is a lot like being a dom in a BDSM relationship.  On the surface, it appears that you have the power, but in reality everything you do is for the other person/people.

Ummm......   I'm gonna back away slowly here. :eek:

Quote from: Exploderwizard;680877Technically not the way I see it. Everyone at the table should be doing their utmost to make sure all of the group is having a good time. This applies to DM and players equally.

Of course.  The DM is a player too (in the broad sense), and should also be having fun.  Any player who gets their enjoyment at the expense of the rest of the table is going to be a problem.

It's just more toxic, and perhaps more common, in the DM role.  Those who seek authority shouldn't have it, etc.

And the mere presence of an "authority" can act as a mitigating factor in the case of an 'abusive' player.  When the abuse is coming from the "authority", the only real recourse is often "leave the game".

Quote from: Exploderwizard;680877Ummm......   I'm gonna back away slowly here. :eek:

HA!

Quote from: Exploderwizard;680877Technically not the way I see it. Everyone at the table should be doing their utmost to make sure all of the group is having a good time. This applies to DM and players equally.

I disagree. Players shouldn't be dicks. But the only thing they have to concern themselves with in the game is their own PC and that PC's behaviour. Unless your group is toxic, they won't intentionally do things to piss off other players. But it isn't Mike's job to make sure Kevin has a fair shake and has a good time. It isn't his job to ensure the game runs smoothly and is fun for everyone. Just as my players find it irksome to be given control of something outside their PCs knowledge or control (narrativism), they find it annoying to be responsible for stuff outside their PC control.

The only one at the table whose core duty it is to make sure everyone is having fun is the DM. And that's why the DM has far more authority and latitude running the game. A DM's role can be likened to a director, and a player's to an actor. Everyone wants the play to go well, but their responsibilities are of an entirely different scope.