What do you expect from D&D?

[Sith_Happens]

Just look at all the Bad DM's. There is always a thread around about a bad DM.

Yes, and in at least half of those threads the primary grievances consist of... the exact sorts of things that you yourself have attested to doing regularly...

But hey, if you really do have a group with the tolerance of saints, then more power to you I guess.

[atemu1234]

Honestly... the irony of Jedipotter saying "Bad DMs don't know their bad"... I need an Aspirin. Not the medicine. Just the entire damned tree...

[TandemChelipeds]

Sounds like player stupidity to me.

You're the one who came up with the example. I only worked with what you gave me.

And I don't care if the player really wants to ''open door number two'' or whatever and I as the DM don't want them too....then that door is not going to be opened.

That's bad planning and bad DMing. Never count on your players' inability to do something.

And I can hear the cries already saying ''that is wrong'' and ''they don't like that'', and I would just say: cry me a river. That is the way the game works.

No, it isn't. If that was how the game worked, there wouldn't be dice and mechanics for surmounting obstacles, and it wouldn't be a game. It'd just be the DM's personal theatre/power trip.

[georgie_leech]

That's bad planning and bad DMing. Never count on your players' inability to do something.

Oh man, one of my old DM's learned that the hard way. Not one, not two, but three campaigns (briefly) derailed because someone attacked something they weren't supposed to or found the door that was supposed to be hidden until we eventually came back having learned the prophecy and yada yada yada.

[TandemChelipeds]

Oh man, one of my old DM's learned that the hard way. Not one, not two, but three campaigns (briefly) derailed because someone attacked something they weren't supposed to or found the door that was supposed to be hidden until we eventually came back having learned the prophecy and yada yada yada.

And honestly, of all the ways to have a plot derailed, isn't that the greatest? "Oh no, these heroes are too awesome. I didn't make the adventure hype enough for their mad tripping-over-relevant-crap skills. Guess I have to come up with more wicked death-defying thrills to throw them into."

[Arbane]

As for your door story, that would be committing the sin that so many videogame developers are guilty of. If there is a door, it should be possible to move through it. Why is every door indestructible no mater how many rockets are fired into it, but if you hit a tank with a couple, or empty a couple of clips' worth of bullets into a tank, it explodes. Why not build tanks out of doors?
Why not in your world, make armour and weapons out of doors? Clearly it is made of a substance more durable than the combined strength of Adamantine, Force and Obdurium.

Plot Armor.

It is the way all games work. A lot of people just don't like to admit it. Like I said, a lot of DM's will hide behind ''plot'' or ''story'' reasons to do things. The players will want to do X, and the DM will say ''does not happen''. Now sure a lot of ''Buddy DM Types'' will just go OOC and beg at the players feet and say something like ''Greatest plyers in the world, I know you can do absolutely anything you want in the game and I, as your humble slave DM must do as you say at all times...but can you please not go to the North? I have nothing ready in that direction, can you please, please, please pick another direction....I'll give everyone a ring of wishing **licks players shoes**

Nice shot. That ridiculous caricature of a strawman didn't know what hit it. Now, how about addressing the arguments that the actual people are making in this thread?

[Elderand]

And honestly, of all the ways to have a plot derailed, isn't that the greatest? "Oh no, these heroes are too awesome. I didn't make the adventure hype enough for their mad tripping-over-relevant-crap skills. Guess I have to come up with more wicked death-defying thrills to throw them into."

I wish my campaigns derailed like this. I nearly have to throw my notes at the players before they get any sort of hints.

[DigoDragon]

My basic expectations for D&D (or really, any RPG I get into):

1. Good communication between GM and PCs on any house rules used so that I know what powers/abilities/spells/etc are off limits in character creation.
2. Good communication between GM and PCs on what kind of world he plans to run so that I know what kind of character ideas will fit (e.g. high fantasy? gritty? after the bomb?).
3. Good communication between the PCs so that we can have a team that will get along with each other on whatever adventure/campaign we venture into.
4. The chance to have a character actually reach higher than 4th level.

[QuickLyRaiNbow]

I'm disappointed we aren't making more alignment jokes and insults involving the provenance of posters and their ancestry from various comedy monsters.

[TandemChelipeds]

I'm disappointed we aren't making more alignment jokes and insults involving the provenance of posters and their ancestry from various comedy monsters.

Your mother is Lawful Evil!

[jedipotter]

My basic expectations for D&D (or really, any RPG I get into):

1. Good communication between GM and PCs on any house rules used so that I know what powers/abilities/spells/etc are off limits in character creation.
2. Good communication between GM and PCs on what kind of world he plans to run so that I know what kind of character ideas will fit (e.g. high fantasy? gritty? after the bomb?).
3. Good communication between the PCs so that we can have a team that will get along with each other on whatever adventure/campaign we venture into.
4. The chance to have a character actually reach higher than 4th level.

1.You just want to know if any thing is banned? All my house rules for, say teleportation, are needed before the game starts so you know....it's not banned?

2.I'm fine with this one.

3.Yea, players too.

4.Well, there is always a chance.....

[atemu1234]

4.Well, there is always a chance.....

I have to admit, I sometimes tell PCs to roll up 1st level characters for a gag dungeon in which they are all intended to die...

[Flickerdart]

1.You just want to know if any thing is banned? All my house rules for, say teleportation, are needed before the game starts so you know....it's not banned?

Do you really not understand the concept of knowing the rules to a game before sitting down at the table?

[Threadnaught]

I'd personally expect to be in control of everything my character does, barring Mind Control. And non-canon jokes.

The consequences of my actions are up to the dice, DM and other players, but I want to control my own actions.



Linking this with every post in this thread.

[Aegis013]

I wish my campaigns derailed like this. I nearly have to throw my notes at the players before they get any sort of hints.

The rule of thumb I use for this, and when giving advice to new/fledgling DMs, is that if you want to put clues in so that the players know something, generate as many as are needed to figure it out. Now make three times that many, and you're probably ok.

Players are adept at passing over a vital clue deeming it irrelevant or seeing information in meaningless stuff.

[jedipotter]

Do you really not understand the concept of knowing the rules to a game before sitting down at the table?

I don't understand the obsession people have with knowing all the rules. It sounds to me like just a way for players to cheat. And players cheat bad enough with the rules they already have and know.

All I can figure is that the people that don't like not knowing, are the video game players. Like a video game, this type of player must know everything ahead of time in detail and then they will pretend to not know it when they act out the part of their character. Like a video game, or more so a video game when you have the cheaters guide or such. I guess it is a way to play D&D, but it sounds so bland.

I'd personally expect to be in control of everything my character does, barring Mind Control. And non-canon jokes.

The consequences of my actions are up to the dice, DM and other players, but I want to control my own actions.

I don't agree with the ''in control'' part. But as the normal game offers the player no control, I'm guessing that you mean you want the illusion of control.

For example: a character casts a spell at a creature. Now, you'd demand that the spell work exactly like it says on page 42...and ok, fine, lets say it does. And the DM says ''creature made it's save, your spell has no effect.'' And you'd sit down all happy and be perfectly fine with that happening. Though the DM could give the creature an item, feat, ability or other way to have a high save....and you would not know this as the player. So, the DM can stop a character from doing anything, at anytime. And as long as the player does not know about it, the player is fine with it.

But a secret house rule gets you bouncing off the walls mad.....but it is the same effect: you spell does not work and you don't know why. And the only thing that is different is that you (think) you know that the creature made the save in the first one, so you (think) everything is OK. And that makes no sense to me....

[Milo v3]

I don't understand the obsession people have with knowing all the rules. It sounds to me like just a way for players to cheat.

Knowing how to play a game doesn't make you a cheat. What are you on about?

[eggynack]

I don't understand the obsession people have with knowing all the rules. It sounds to me like just a way for players to cheat. And players cheat bad enough with the rules they already have and know.

The idea that you would need a deep understanding of the rules to cheat is just ludicrous. Like, more ludicrous than most things you say on the topic. Cheating is how you bypass the need to know the rules.

All I can figure is that the people that don't like not knowing, are the video game players. Like a video game, this type of player must know everything ahead of time in detail and then they will pretend to not know it when they act out the part of their character. Like a video game, or more so a video game when you have the cheaters guide or such. I guess it is a way to play D&D, but it sounds so bland.

Learning the rules, especially in a game like D&D, is the way you learn how to do the things you want to do, and how you learn that some things you want to do might be impossible or insanely difficult. It's not like you can just intuitively know stuff like what options you have in a grapple, or how difficult those actions are to take. In real life, you can just eyeball this stuff, relying on training, and intuition, and muscle memory to tell you how hard a given target is going to be to hit, or how well a certain technique will work. In a game, you need to rely on rules to tell you that information.

But a secret house rule gets you bouncing off the walls mad.....but it is the same effect: you spell does not work and you don't know why. And the only thing that is different is that you (think) you know that the creature made the save in the first one, so you (think) everything is OK. And that makes no sense to me....

The difference is that in the first situation there's an underlying trust. I trust the DM to actually have the right defenses to stop my effect (not a save, incidentally, because you actually know that that's why your spell failed if that's how it failed). The enemy had better defenses prepared than I had offense, and with a better plan, I might have succeeded. With secret house rules though, there is no trust. I don't trust that my spell's failure was due to a weakness or lack of planning on my part, and to touch on the second point, there was really almost nothing I could do to plan around it.

[Anlashok]

Learning the rules, especially in a game like D&D, is the way you learn how to do the things you want to do, and how you learn that some things you want to do might be impossible or insanely difficult. It's not like you can just intuitively know stuff like what options you have in a grapple, or how difficult those actions are to take. In real life, you can just eyeball this stuff, relying on training, and intuition, and muscle memory to tell you how hard a given target is going to be to hit, or how well a certain technique will work. In a game, you need to rely on rules to tell you that information.

His point is also a backwards one, because video games are often designed to intentionally obfuscate the rules from the player.

[jedipotter]

The difference is that in the first situation there's an underlying trust. I trust the DM to actually have the right defenses to stop my effect (not a save, incidentally, because you actually know that that's why your spell failed if that's how it failed). The enemy had better defenses prepared than I had offense, and with a better plan, I might have succeeded. With secret house rules though, there is no trust. I don't trust that my spell's failure was due to a weakness or lack of planning on my part, and to touch on the second point, there was really almost nothing I could do to plan around it.

Right, I'm skipping the part where you know about the save. For my example here, the DM is one of them ''I just tell the players stuff'' types. So the DM just says ''the save was made''.

Now I ask how you can have trust without full knowledge? Your just assuming the DM made a better defense, but you don't know that for sure. It's just what you want to believe. Your imagining the game as a level playing field when it is not.

As a player, you can't just change things about your character on a whim. You can't do things like change race, templates, feats, magic items or such, except for the couple of ways the rules allow or doing things in the game. But you can't just say ''oh my character has a sword of sharpness now''. (Unless you do play in a game like that?)

But the DM changes things, and more so creates things from scratch all the time. And there are no specific rules for this other then the vague CR and Encounter Rating stuff. So a DM can make or change anything into anything any time. So the DM can change/make whatever they want, with high save(s) and stop spells from effecting it (mostly). And there are no rules to check. If the DM says the orc has the iron will feat it does. The player can't say anything about that.

So when you cast a spell, and the DM says ''made it's save'', how can you ever trust that? Is it just blind trust?

[eggynack]

Is it just blind trust?

I suppose you could call it that. I tend to trust folks unless I have particular reason to do otherwise, because what the hell else are you going to do? Keeping a bunch of secrets about the game's mechanics is a particular reason to do otherwise, however.

[torrasque666]

Its part of this thing called a social contract. The DM trusts his players won't cheat or try to break his game. The Players trust the DM won't screw them over.

But that involves being able to trust, which if I recall correctly, you lack the ability to do so. I'm sure someone can dig through the old threads and find a quote of you saying that.

[jedipotter]

I suppose you could call it that. I tend to trust folks unless I have particular reason to do otherwise, because what the hell else are you going to do? Keeping a bunch of secrets about the game's mechanics is a particular reason to do otherwise, however.

So you hate beyond all hate the idea that a DM might have come up with a ''rule'' for there setting (lets use: casting Conjuration/Summoning spells at a gate cause them to be adsorbed and the gate will explode when the level of the spells absorbed is equal to twice the CL of the gate) and wrote it down years ago.

But at the same time, if the DM was a blank slate, and had nothing....but right before the encounter just ''made up the gate rule'' to spice up the encounter.....that would be perfectly fine?

Or do you take number three where the DM makes an announcement?

[Psyren]

A good time to announce a change like that would be when the player is learning the Gate spell or buying an item that can cast it. (Or in the case of a divine caster, when they are preparing it for the first time.) As the DM, you should know all of those things anyway, and it would give the player the opportunity to say "oh, my character wouldn't learn/prepare/buy this then." It would even be in-character if they have Spellcraft to know how the spell is supposed to work.

[eggynack]

Or do you take number three where the DM makes an announcement?

This one, definitely. Changing the rules just as I'm about to cast my spell, or worse, right after I've decided to cast it is bad form, and I rather dislike the idea of this ancient house rule being secret. Far better to just introduce it significantly before it's going to be relevant, and if the DM is really struck by gate based inspiration right as I'm casting the spell, then they can mention the idea later, and maybe make it a rule on a different day.

[AuraTwilight]

If the players don't know the house rules, how can they be sure the GM isn't cheating and making them up on the spot in order to have their way?

Literally everything Jedipotter says can be turned right back around on them with greater effectiveness.

[Threadnaught]

I don't understand the obsession people have with knowing all the rules. It sounds to me like just a way for players to cheat. And players cheat bad enough with the rules they already have and know.

To know the rules of a game is to know what is allowed and to be able to play without wasting time by guessing every action.

All I can figure is that the people that don't like not knowing, are the video game players. Like a video game, this type of player must know everything ahead of time in detail and then they will pretend to not know it when they act out the part of their character. Like a video game, or more so a video game when you have the cheaters guide or such. I guess it is a way to play D&D, but it sounds so bland.

Nah, videogame players are generally fine with not knowing the rules and with everything scaling to their character like in Oblivion. Some may even be fine with the rules being unlearnable like in Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde for the NES.
Though if you want to run a videogamey Campaign, then that's your deal.

I don't agree with the ''in control'' part. But as the normal game offers the player no control, I'm guessing that you mean you want the illusion of control.

Yes, because you've made it very clear that when you DM, you control everything and your "players" just sit there and watch you play with toys and listen to you tell your "amazing" story.

The normal game offers a massive amount of control to players of their characters, I would normally be able to choose from among things like, where I move to, what I say, what I do, what my Class is, what my Race is and my personality. So much control, even if the DM railroads, I'll be able to do stuff.

For example: a character casts a spell at a creature. Now, you'd demand that the spell work exactly like it says on page 42...and ok, fine, lets say it does. And the DM says ''creature made it's save, your spell has no effect.'' And you'd sit down all happy and be perfectly fine with that happening. Though the DM could give the creature an item, feat, ability or other way to have a high save....and you would not know this as the player.

By RAW, what is written in a Spell's descriptor, is what I would call a consequence, the action? Casting the Spell, the effects are out of the Player's control once the targets have been selected.
So even if the Spell does work exactly as written, I would no longer be in control of it (except self buffs), the dice, DM and other players (in that order) would generally decide what happened.

So, the DM can stop a character from doing anything, at anytime. And as long as the player does not know about it, the player is fine with it.

Why can't I open a simple wooden door? I can pass through Force, I can open any lack and have an effective Strength of 50.
Why can't I walk over here and talk to someone? I have legs, a mouth a Strength Score and a Dexterity Score.
Why can't I shoot that guy running away from us? He tried to kill us and we know a Gold Dragon who owes us a favour, I am not letting you make that moustache twilling, maniacal laughter addict in black armour, with the black cape, become the main villain. What is this, a videogame from the 80s?

No, a DM cannot stop a player from doing anything and have the player be fine with it. Perhaps they can prevent their actions from having a notable effect, but to prevent those actions in the first place is to strip away the player's ability to, PLAY THE GAME.

But a secret house rule gets you bouncing off the walls mad.....but it is the same effect: you spell does not work and you don't know why. And the only thing that is different is that you (think) you know that the creature made the save in the first one, so you (think) everything is OK. And that makes no sense to me....

Secret rules that players are never allowed to learn, means a player must constantly waste time guessing what they're allowed to do. Any examples given during this thread like the one below, are accurate to a game where the rules are unknowable.

Spoiler: Replace "DM" with "JP" and it works out the same.

Show

Player: Can I do this oh mighty DM, without whom my life would be nothing?
DM: No! You do that instead! Now grovel before me and beg my forgiveness for breaking my laws.
Player: Forgive me oh mighty DM, without whom my life would have no meaning. I am a pathetic cheater for wanting to think for myself and I beg your forgiveness my master.
DM: Next player.
*next turn*
Player: Oh great masterful DM who gives me a reason to exist. What does my character do?
DM: This. This is the action you take.
Player: Thank you, oh great creator of the game Gygax played wrong. For allowing me to call myself a player.

I don't agree with the ''in control'' part.

IRRELEVANT!

The question was not "what would jedipotter expect for his players?" It was "what would you (other posters) expect from a DM?"

Regardless of what you do in your "games", this is about what others expect from unknown DMs.


Linking this with every post in this thread.

[Earthwalker]

So when you cast a spell, and the DM says ''made it's save'', how can you ever trust that? Is it just blind trust?

Some GMs (myself included) roll out in the open,
I also make the PC spell caster roll the saves for the bad guys he is casting spells on. So he knows if the creature made its save or not.
Just throwing that out there.

[TandemChelipeds]

So when you cast a spell, and the DM says ''made it's save'', how can you ever trust that? Is it just blind trust?

But why would the DM ever lie about that, other than to be arbitrarily cruel? It doesn't help the game progress. It doesn't contribute to the setting, or the plot, or anything, and even if a DM were to say it in those terms when the save was, in fact, made, that would be an immersion-breaking way of saying it. The only reason to lie that a monster made its save, rather than simply saying that the spell doesn't work, is to deceive the player into wasting all their spells in the hopes that one of them will work, and that doesn't contribute meaningfully to the game at all. This isn't what a DM does to their players, it's what an abusive parent does to their children. And I can back that up with experience.

[afroakuma]

jedipotter, you've now stated pretty definitively that your ideal of the gme involves the PCs having "no control" and no choices; that if you say they're going North they go North, if you say they cast a different spell then that is what happens, and that if someone even so much as asked to turn left when you told them they were going right, you'd kick them out for being a crybaby.

So I have to ask...

How exactly are they "players" at that point?

Your posts point to you having had some abrupt and unpleasant wake-up call from a player or group of players whose expectations of D&D differed from yours. That doesn't make their expectations bad or yours good. Perhaps it's time to look at a new game system instead of telling others who don't share your opinion that they are all "cheating" and playing the game wrong.