DMing Style

[Thrathgnar]

I focus on the story more than the mechanics. I work with my players and they work with me to create epic plotlines. I usually give them a lot of freedom as long as their choices fit within the campaign setting, and I make fights cinematic and harrowing but not lethal

[The Evil DM]

I am giving a late response to this thread but I wanted to think about it in depth before putting something down.

I speak about my campaigns a lot on this forum. Using terms common in this thread I run my campaigns as a sandbox but that is not my focus. My main objective as a GM is consistency in all things so that once the game is recognized as consistent players can make reliable inferences from data given.

That said, I believe the following. A role playing game is three objects, Narrative, Setting and Character, all linked by System. The system, whether it is complex or simple provides a basis for evaluating Character to Character interactions (for this monsters are just another form of character) Character to Setting interactions, and Character to Narrative interactions. (narrative provides the dynamic flow for the setting and characters) That system basis is present to help a GM arbitrate the game

a lot of GM problems are traceable to poor decision processes by GMs. Whether through lack of experience or capability a GM who is incapable of consistently engaging in a decision process to consistently resolve events in the campaign.

What I strive for is a Dynamic Narrative, coupled with a Dynamic Setting and Dynamic Characters. By dynamic I mean they are very interactive. To that end I have developed a number of personal tools for managing this.

I manage most of my setting through simulation systems. Most of the "Rules" that govern the setting are not known to the players. The players don't necessarily need to know how I determine local weather, or how I determine the amount of population growth in a season. The players need to know the outcome and changes as the timeline the campaign advances. I manage NPCs through a decision engine I have built where I record interactions and model the amount of friendship, or animosity, the PCs generate with individuals, groups and possibly even entire kingdoms.

These help me to make very consistent arbitration of game events.

Do note I say consistent, not fair. There are some areas within the campaign universe that are clearly not fair from a PC survival perspective. But those areas are known, consistently defined and the players know the risks they take if they venture into the dark places of the universe.

[ShaneMRoth]

Does this not come off as a passive-aggressive way of saying 'no'? Wouldn't the players prefer you just say 'no'?

I strongly concur with this sentiment.

My DM style includes protecting the viability of the campaign setting by managing the expectations of the players and sustaining willing suspension of disbelief.

Occasionally, this means saying: No.

From time to time, this means saying: Hell, no.

Setting high DC scores for actions that strike the DM as inherently problematic is not a terribly effective way of managing a player's expectations.

Consider this scene from Dumb and Dumber...

Lloyd Christmas: ... What are my chances?

Mary Swanson: Not good.

Lloyd Christmas: You mean, not good like one out of a hundred?

Mary Swanson: I'd say more like one out of a million.

[pause]

Lloyd Christmas: So you're telling me there's a chance... YEAH!

If I set a high DC score for something, even if I set it to Epic Levels, I am saying that this is something is not just possible but is repeatable.

A player who is set on making an idea work is just as likely to endeavor to optimize which ever game mechanic that will put the idea into play as he is to drop the idea.

"No" is not a four letter word in my campaigns.

[Keltest]

I strongly concur with this sentiment.

My DM style includes protecting the viability of the campaign setting by managing the expectations of the players and sustaining willing suspension of disbelief.

Occasionally, this means saying: No.

From time to time, this means saying: Hell, no.

Setting high DC scores for actions that strike the DM as inherently problematic is not a terribly effective way of managing a player's expectations.

Consider this scene from Dumb and Dumber...





If I set a high DC score for something, even if I set it to Epic Levels, I am saying that this is something is not just possible but is repeatable.

A player who is set on making an idea work is just as likely to endeavor to optimize which ever game mechanic that will put the idea into play as he is to drop the idea.

"No" is not a four letter word in my campaigns.

Your assumption here seems to be that your players will think "because there is a DC, it is meant to be reachable." instead of "Oh, I don't have the capability to do that."

[ShaneMRoth]

Your assumption here seems to be that your players will think "because there is a DC, it is meant to be reachable." instead of "Oh, I don't have the capability to do that."

You are correct. That is my assumption. Some players will draw that conclusion.

[Keltest]

You are correct. That is my assumption. Some players will draw that conclusion.

Any player that draws that conclusion is not likely to be deterred from their antics by being told "no". They might not roll the dice, but that wont stop them from pushing the limits of the game physics and your patience at every opportunity. They read "no" as "Find a different way to try it."

[ShaneMRoth]

Example:
-I'll eat it.
-You wanna eat the iron chest? That's just insane, dude.
-Nah, see I have adamantium teeth. And the jaw, is like, the strongest muscle.
-Okay... Not sure about that jaw fact, but yeah ok, I guess you could eat the chest, but don't you agree it would take awhile and you'd probably end up dead?
-Nah, Im a dwarf, dwarves are tough, I have 22 Constitution, I can survive things no human ever could, like eating that much iron.
-Alright *Sign* Look, i'll allow a strenght roll to eat through the iron chest, even with a success it'll take 2 hours. Then, later, you will have a DIFFICULT roll related to your constitution which could make you severely ill, dead, or maybe -IF YOU ARE LUCKY- You will have severe tummy-ache which will still need some magic to heal your innards anyway. That's fine with you?
-So have I eaten the damn chest already? It's step 1 of a 9-step plan that can't fail.

This example is illustrative of a problem I've experienced at the table.

The game doesn't work if the Player strategically withholds information from the DM.

I'm assuming this example is theoretical, but I've seen players attempt to give me the equivalent of "the 1st step of a 9-point plan" from time to time. And they invariably felt the need to withhold the other eight points, and invariably refused to not divulge what the goal of the plan was...

I was just supposed to commit to a series of rulings, on their own merits and completely out of context, and then... once I had committed to the rulings... the player would attempt to confront me with how those rulings support this "plan"...

A DM can be an Unreliable Narrator to the players, but the players can't be Unreliable Narrators to the DM.

If a player wants a good ruling from a DM, then the player needs to feed good timely information to the DM.

[Keltest]

This example is illustrative of a problem I've experienced at the table.

The game doesn't work if the Player strategically withholds information from the DM.

I'm assuming this example is theoretical, but I've seen players attempt to give me the equivalent of "the 1st step of a 9-point plan" from time to time. And they invariably felt the need to withhold the other eight points, and invariably refused to not divulge what the goal of the plan was...

I was just supposed to commit to a series of rulings, on their own merits and completely out of context, and then... once I had committed to the rulings... the player would attempt to confront me with how those rulings support this "plan"...

A DM can be an Unreliable Narrator to the players, but the players can't be Unreliable Narrators to the DM.

If a player wants a good ruling from a DM, then the player needs to feed good timely information to the DM.

In what way is it a problem? Unless knowing the end goal is necessary for you to figure out how the player goes about the earlier steps (in which case some probing would likely get that information anyway) you don't need to know any of the steps outside of the one currently being attempted.

And lets say they do tell you the plan. What are you going to do about it? Either you find a problem step and veto it, or... you eventually run into the problem step and it gets vetoed anyway. Or you don't find a reason to veto it and it works irrespective of whether or not you knew the plan in advance.

Its not a problem unless you choose to make it into one.

[ShaneMRoth]

...
And lets say they do tell you the plan. What are you going to do about it? ...

I'm going to make a ruling with the full benefit of context.

Sticking with the example (step one of the dwarf's cunning plan: Eat a chest.) Perhaps the plan could be viable if the dwarf use a spell like polymorph or shapechange to assume the form of a creature with the Swallow Whole extraordinary ability. Maybe the plan can work that way, maybe it can't. But if the DM doesn't know what the plan is, the DM can't make any in context ruling. And in my experience, any player hatched plan that starts with a wackadoo first step like "eat a chest" doesn't get any better by step 9.

[Keltest]

I'm going to make a ruling with the full benefit of context.

Sticking with the example (step one of the dwarf's cunning plan: Eat a chest.) Perhaps the plan could be viable if the dwarf use a spell like polymorph or shapechange to assume the form of a creature with the Swallow Whole extraordinary ability. Maybe the plan can work that way, maybe it can't. But if the DM doesn't know what the plan is, the DM can't make any in context ruling. And in my experience, any player hatched plan that starts with a wackadoo first step like "eat a chest" doesn't get any better by step 9.

How does context change the ruling at all? Either he can eat the chest, with or without magical assistance, or he cant. At best it would let you suggest alternatives, but that isn't really part of your job as DM and so cant be problematic if you don't do it.

Seriously, what is stopping you from saying "No, but you could be polymorphed into something that can" without knowing the plan?

[nedz]

My style:
As close to full on sandbox as I can — I do have to roll back from this sometimes
No DeM
No DMPCs
Minimal meta-gaming — I'm quite simulationist

I do try to make every session different with creative encounters

I also try to create suspense, or paranoia, or other emotions, ..., even comedy sometimes

[Jay R]

In what way is it a problem? Unless knowing the end goal is necessary for you to figure out how the player goes about the earlier steps (in which case some probing would likely get that information anyway) you don't need to know any of the steps outside of the one currently being attempted.

And lets say they do tell you the plan. What are you going to do about it? Either you find a problem step and veto it, or... you eventually run into the problem step and it gets vetoed anyway. Or you don't find a reason to veto it and it works irrespective of whether or not you knew the plan in advance.

Its not a problem unless you choose to make it into one.

Because in almost every case, they are trying to get me to make a ruling out of ignorance that I would not make if I knew the actual situation.

Turn the question around. Why is a player deliberately withholding relevant information from the DM, for any reason other than a con game?

[Flickerdart]

Ooh, yeah, that's productive - assume that all players are crooks just waiting to slip something past His Excellence the DM.

Do none of you people actually play with your friends? People you trust and respect? No?

[Jay R]

Ooh, yeah, that's productive - assume that all players are crooks just waiting to slip something past His Excellence the DM.

Do none of you people actually play with your friends? People you trust and respect? No?

Insult received.

Yes, I play with my friends, people I trust and respect. And they don't try to withhold information from me when I'm making a ruling. That's the point - trust goes two ways.

[Flickerdart]

Yes, I play with my friends, people I trust and respect. And they don't try to withhold information from me when I'm making a ruling. That's the point - trust goes two ways.

Except that as soon as they withhold something from you, you consider them conmen? That's not trust.

[Eisenheim]

I agree with the point that trickling out questions rather than just leveling with the GM about what you want to do from the outset is bad behavior, which I would never expect from the friends I play with, and would demand they cut out at once.

[ShaneMRoth]

Do none of you people actually play with your friends? People you trust and respect? No?

Insult received.

Yes, I play with my friends, people I trust and respect. And they don't try to withhold information from me when I'm making a ruling. That's the point - trust goes two ways.

Except that as soon as they withhold something from you, you consider them conmen? That's not trust.

On the matter of trust...

Players will, from time to time, Work the Ref... and will throw spaghetti against the wall to see what will stick... and get so wrapped up defending their character concept that they get tunnel vision.

None of this done with malice.

If a player really wants a desired ruling, and believes that the best way to get that ruling is to act like an Unreliable Narrator to the DM, their desire to get the ruling may get the better of them.

But my point is that a DM will make better rulings if the DM has full context of what the player is trying to achieve before the ruling. If a player has a nine-point plan, and he wants it to succeed, then that player needs to show the DM the entire plan in advance.

[Flickerdart]

Players will, from time to time, Work the Ref... and will throw spaghetti against the wall to see what will stick... and get so wrapped up defending their character concept that they get tunnel vision.

If there's anything we've learned from this thread, it's that DMs get wrapped up something, too.

[AxeAlex]

On the matter of trust...
But my point is that a DM will make better rulings if the DM has full context of what the player is trying to achieve before the ruling. If a player has a nine-point plan, and he wants it to succeed, then that player needs to show the DM the entire plan in advance.

Yes and no.
I fully support that a player should reveal his 9-step-plan if the GM asks so. But I would never ask for the player to do so in the first place.

The GM is allowed to be surprised too. Hell, sometimes it's way funnier to see the wacky plan unfold step-by-step.

Sometimes the stupid plan is doomed to fail, sometimes it's actually quite good and it has to work. But almost everytime it's way funnier to play it as it goes.

Sometimes, the plan won't work just because the player forgot something. Maybe the plan would have worked if he swallowed the chest whole, but since he didnt, the chest is broken and the plan doesn't work.... And that's really funny because he ate a chest for nothing! If he told me all his intents before hand, I could have trumped the plan, I could have allowed the plan to work, but I would have prevented the players from ruining their own plan!

[Gamgee]

Originally very focused rail roady campaign. A few years ago I got so good at being the GM I do the open world style now. I also have combined it with a good story at the same time.

[Jay R]

Insult received.

Yes, I play with my friends, people I trust and respect. And they don't try to withhold information from me when I'm making a ruling. That's the point - trust goes two ways.

Except that as soon as they withhold something from you, you consider them conmen? That's not trust.

Second insult received. Please stop making up falsehoods about what happens in my game. It really doesn't forward the conversation in any useful direction.

The people I trust and respect and play with are trustworthy and respectable, and do not withhold relevant information from me.

[Flickerdart]

Second insult received. Please stop making up falsehoods about what happens in my game. It really doesn't forward the conversation in any useful direction.

The people I trust and respect and play with are trustworthy and respectable, and do not withhold relevant information from me.

I'm not making up anything. You literally just called people who don't immediately tell the DM everything con men.

[Jay R]

I'm not making up anything. You literally just called people who don't immediately tell the DM everything con men.

Yes, I did. And then you claimed I played with people I don't respect and trust. You made that up. It isn't true.

I told you that I played with respectable and trustworthy people, who don't withhold information from the DM. And then you made up a scenario that happens "as soon as they withhold something from you", after I told you that they don't.

Please stop making up things things and claiming they happen at my table. I have never had a player withhold relevant information, and I have never treated a player as a con man.

Please stop making up stories about what has happened at my games.

[Callak]

Just curious as to what your dming style is.

Are you a very picky and hands on controlling type with every aspect including character creation?

Do you allow your players to have complete control of their characters?

Do you just guide the players in a certain direction and let the game play out with different twists and turns?

Please explain why

Just curious to see people responses.

My personal style is Gygaxian. But I often change styles to suit the group. When I game with my best friends it generally turns into a big game of improve eg. New group starts in the dungeon and I expect a death or two by the end of the 1st foray and back to town. My friends desiccating holy statues killing innkeeper's with horseheads and vomiting worms into urchin's mouths is a normal session. They do what they want and I try to make it seem part of the plot

[Thrudd]

But my point is that a DM will make better rulings if the DM has full context of what the player is trying to achieve before the ruling. If a player has a nine-point plan, and he wants it to succeed, then that player needs to show the DM the entire plan in advance.

I don't see how it makes any difference what the player's ultimate plan is. If they ask you whether or not their character can accomplish something, why would you need to know the subsequent actions they intend to take? If context is important for a ruling, then you wouldn't make the ruling without confirming the context, right? (Assuming the players are asking for a hypothetical ruling of a situation that has not happened yet).

It isn't possible for the player to hide anything from the DM. If you don't tell the DM what your character is doing, it hasn't happened yet. If the DM hasn't described something, it isn't in the game yet.

Some Players might get angry if they think they can trick the DM by asking for a ruling, and then try to apply that ruling in a different situation get a negative response. This is not them hiding anything, nor is it a problem with the DM, it is a problem of player expectation and understanding. The DMs job is to rule fairly and consistent with the fictional reality presented. Lawyering on the part of the players ideally will not affect this. Either something makes sense for the setting or it doesn't, and nobody knows better than the DM who created the setting.

[Reltzik]

Answering original questions in reverse order:

The players need to be the protagonists, the primary actors in the story, meaning that their choices should be what makes the story play out. The players are also my audience, meaning I have to make the story interesting to them, which is best accomplished by getting them to buy in and to import their own interests and motivations. My job is to give them a rough concept/direction/target to start with, set the stage for their antics, throw some obstacles in their way, and make sure they don't lose direction TOO much. Often I'll railroad the first mission, drop some plot coupons, and let them meander after that. If they want to drop the main plot line for a while to chase after buried treasure or something, that's fine, that's a direction too. OOC, I'll warn them that if they want to go charging off to a random dungeon where I'm not expecting them to go, they'll have to give me a week to prep, and they're cool with that.

Players MOSTLY have complete control of their characters, barring environmental interference. That means they can't just say they go run off if they're tied up or locked up, for example. Also, mind-control magic is a thing in some settings, and PCs can be hit with it too. And I'll warn them if their skill check is high enough to know that casting a fireball at an iron golem is a BAD idea, giving them a take-back.

I'll usually restrict character-creation options to core plus a few basic supplements, because too many options and too many rules bog things down and create opportunities for breakage. I don't want the players interested in the cool new combos they got from the feats from twenty different splatbooks, I want them interested in the setting they use the combos in and the villains they use them against and the goals they're using those combos to advance. Backgrounds I'll restrict somewhat for setting, and I will usually tell them outright something like, "You're free to choose your background, but it has to be compatible with this starting mission for this starting employer."

[ShaneMRoth]

I don't see how it makes any difference what the player's ultimate plan is.

One of the cornerstones of my DM style is managing player expectations.

The more fully and deeply I understand what those expectations actually are, the more likely I am to manage them successfully.

In the theoretical case of the Dwarf Who Ate Too Much from post #30, there appear to be a number of specific expectations that attach to the dwarf's ability to eat an iron chest. None of them particularly obvious.

Is Step Two of his Cunning Plan: Enter An Iron Chest Eating Contest? or Become Proficient At Farting Iron? Does the plan have something to do with magnets? From the point of view of game mechanics, would it be a good idea for me to write a house rule? Should I cook up a Feat? (Ironcast Stomach, prerequisite is Con of 20 and adamantine teeth and Wisdom no higher than 5) Or, as the example implies, is this player's plan fatally flawed and doomed from the start?

Another cornerstone of my DM style is to conspire with the players to tell the best story possible. This requires, as has been mentioned consistently and repeatedly elsewhere on this thread, a level of reciprocal trust.

If, as the DM, I say "I need to know why you want to do this in order to make a better ruling", my players need to trust that I'm actually trying to make a better ruling and that my need to understand the why is a sincere need.

My DM style is all about that context.

[Keltest]

One of the cornerstones of my DM style is managing player expectations.

The more fully and deeply I understand what those expectations actually are, the more likely I am to manage them successfully.

In the theoretical case of the Dwarf Who Ate Too Much from post #30, there appear to be a number of specific expectations that attach to the dwarf's ability to eat an iron chest. None of them particularly obvious.

Is Step Two of his Cunning Plan: Enter An Iron Chest Eating Contest? or Become Proficient At Farting Iron? Does the plan have something to do with magnets? From the point of view of game mechanics, would it be a good idea for me to write a house rule? Should I cook up a Feat? (Ironcast Stomach, prerequisite is Con of 20 and adamantine teeth and Wisdom no higher than 5) Or, as the example implies, is this player's plan fatally flawed and doomed from the start?

Another cornerstone of my DM style is to conspire with the players to tell the best story possible. This requires, as has been mentioned consistently and repeatedly elsewhere on this thread, a level of reciprocal trust.

If, as the DM, I say "I need to know why you want to do this in order to make a better ruling", my players need to trust that I'm actually trying to make a better ruling and that my need to understand the why is a sincere need.

My DM style is all about that context.

Please explain to me how your ruling would change based on context. It seems to me like you are at best expediting things that you would be doing anyway.

[Thrudd]

One of the cornerstones of my DM style is managing player expectations.

The more fully and deeply I understand what those expectations actually are, the more likely I am to manage them successfully.

In the theoretical case of the Dwarf Who Ate Too Much from post #30, there appear to be a number of specific expectations that attach to the dwarf's ability to eat an iron chest. None of them particularly obvious.

Is Step Two of his Cunning Plan: Enter An Iron Chest Eating Contest? or Become Proficient At Farting Iron? Does the plan have something to do with magnets? From the point of view of game mechanics, would it be a good idea for me to write a house rule? Should I cook up a Feat? (Ironcast Stomach, prerequisite is Con of 20 and adamantine teeth and Wisdom no higher than 5) Or, as the example implies, is this player's plan fatally flawed and doomed from the start?

Another cornerstone of my DM style is to conspire with the players to tell the best story possible. This requires, as has been mentioned consistently and repeatedly elsewhere on this thread, a level of reciprocal trust.

If, as the DM, I say "I need to know why you want to do this in order to make a better ruling", my players need to trust that I'm actually trying to make a better ruling and that my need to understand the why is a sincere need.

My DM style is all about that context.

So you might rule in favor of the chest-eating if you think it will lead to something you want to happen, but would rule against it if not?
Wouldn't this be a very clear decision? either it's possible in your setting or it isn't, can dwarves eat iron or can't they? Regardless of why the player wants to do it.

Making rulings depending on the whim of story or player preference actually seems contrary to the desired goal of consistency. How will the players ever know what to expect from your setting?

[ShaneMRoth]

So you might rule in favor of the chest-eating if you think it will lead to something you want to happen, but would rule against it if not?
Wouldn't this be a very clear decision? either it's possible in your setting or it isn't, can dwarves eat iron or can't they? Regardless of why the player wants to do it.

Suppose it turns out that the plan only requires that the dwarf get a large amount of iron in his stomach, and there is no affirmative need to actually chew the iron. He could then just break the iron chest into smaller pieces and swallow them without chewing them. No need to actually use his adamantine teeth, which are attached to his jaw with non-adamantine gums.

There is an actual guy who ate metal.

Michael Lotito.

Dude ate a bike once. He didn't just start chewing on the bike. He broke it down into its parts and swallowed the parts whole. He chased the parts down with mineral oil. And he didn't do it in a single sitting. It took a while. Exactly how long? I don't know. I've never eaten a bike.

(This guy died at age 57. So, he probably was not doing himself any favors by eating metal.)

So, if the plan falls apart unless the iron pieces have the character's teeth marks on them, then that will affect my ruling.

I need to know why. Particularly when players start spit-balling and improvising in real time at the game table.

I have answered this question to the very best of my ability. I don't know what else to say.