DMing Style

[Thrudd]

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.

Oh, I see. You're saying that you need as much detail as possible about what the player means when they ask something. Sure, I agree with that. If the player asks " can my dwarf eat an iron chest", they need to clarify if they are trying to it chew up with their jaw and teeth, or break it up with tools and swallow little pieces of iron. if they swallow little pieces if iron, you would warn them that there will be a saving throw required if they eat more than one or two pieces, or whatever you decide. It doesn't matter why they want to do that, but their intended actions do need to be clarified so they don't have a different picture of what is happening than you do, and your rulings make sense to them.

[ShaneMRoth]

Oh, I see. You're saying that you need as much detail as possible about what the player means when they ask something. Sure, I agree with that. If the player asks " can my dwarf eat an iron chest", they need to clarify if they are trying to it chew up with their jaw and teeth, or break it up with tools and swallow little pieces of iron. if they swallow little pieces if iron, you would warn them that there will be a saving throw required if they eat more than one or two pieces, or whatever you decide. It doesn't matter why they want to do that, but their intended actions do need to be clarified so they don't have a different picture of what is happening than you do, and your rulings make sense to them.

Very much so. If the DM and the Player are not on the same sheet of music, the whole orchestra suffers.

[Keltest]

Very much so. If the DM and the Player are not on the same sheet of music, the whole orchestra suffers.

On this we are in agreement, however that's rather different than needing to know all of the 9 steps of his plan. Theres nothing wrong with making sure you know what the player is trying to do now.

[goto124]

If a player has something as complicated as a 9-step plan, I'll be suspicious of her rules-lawyering, munchkining, and/or trying to 'cheat' the system.

Am I wrong?

[Flickerdart]

If a player has something as complicated as a 9-step plan, I'll be suspicious of her rules-lawyering, munchkining, and/or trying to 'cheat' the system.

Am I wrong?

Yes. A 9-step plan (or for that matter, a 90 step plan) never has to touch any mechanics at all.

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.

Never said that. Don't put words in my mouth.

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.

I am not making up scenarios - I am describing the consequences of your antagonistic stance as you have laid it out. It is entirely possible that no player in the history of your entire table has withheld any kind information from you, but you are saying that if they did so, you would consider them trying to pull a con. "But they don't, so I don't" is not a rebuttal.

[Segev]

As a DM, I tend to be lazy. I let my players use any rules that I have access to, including those which they provide for me, as long as they're up-front about what they're planning to do with their builds and any tricks they wish to exploit. I tend, because I like high power, to be very permissive. I also tend to be of the "fix it when it's broken" school; if it turns out something is bad for the game, I reserve (up front) the right to ask them to change their build or how they're using it to avoid the problem. If they refuse, they either simply lose the ability without refund or are asked to leave the game. This is not done heavy-handedly unless I'm left with no choice; I always try to work it out OOC with the player first. (So far, I have had little trouble.)



I actually agree with Shane on the "tell the DM your clever plan from the get-go" point. One hallmark of the player with whom I most associate the contravailing behavior has a tendency to have "clever plans" which he never shares with the DM, and which he coyly asks if he SHOULD tell because he doesn't want to "ruin the surprise." His plans usually turn out to require accepting several assumptions and allowing narration to override mechanics, and are presented as "I do this!" as if it's a fiat accompli before the DM can even break it down into a series of rolls or determine what mechanics come into play, even on opposed actions.

This tends to lead to a breakdown of narrative flow as retconning would have to ensue to "undo" the things the player declared done.


Regarding the issue of such a "clever plan" being broken down into a series of rulings and only put together at the end, I'm also likely to ask the player what his goal is, because I can tell him whether it's feasible or not (and then let him argue with me about it if his plan really is that clever). But if he gets a series of rulings that turn out to be ill-thought-out for his specific plan, then enacts something that shouldn't work, I'm very likely to tell him flat-out that he's found a bug in my rulings, and that I'm going to change them retroactively to account for it.

If he'd told me from the outset what his plan was, we could have avoided it. Even then, this is only a "problem" if he's already invested resources in the "clever plan" that are now wasted because the rules on which he was relying are about to change. I don't like doing that to players, but trying to play "keep away" with the laws of physics against the GM just doesn't work.

That doesn't mean all "clever plans" will fail! I don't have to have the result in my plot to allow it. It does have to avoid causing serious balance problems for the game as a whole, or failing the "invisible tower shield" test. (i.e., if a rule glitch leads to something nonsensical on the face of it, I will probably rule 0 it out.)

[Flickerdart]

There's nothing wrong with letting a character enact three steps of the four-step plan and then have it turn out that the fourth step is a dud. Many a stratagem has failed at the last stage.

[Segev]

There's nothing wrong with letting a character enact three steps of the four-step plan and then have it turn out that the fourth step is a dud. Many a stratagem has failed at the last stage.

There isn't. The issue arises when they try to enact all four steps in hypothetical questions asking for rulings in a vacuum, then try to recombine the rulings for their plan to be "DMproof" afterwards. If they invest the resources only to find the rulings are changing slightly or are interpreted differently in some specific way, they start to act like the DM is jerking them around.

[Keltest]

There isn't. The issue arises when they try to enact all four steps in hypothetical questions asking for rulings in a vacuum, then try to recombine the rulings for their plan to be "DMproof" afterwards. If they invest the resources only to find the rulings are changing slightly or are interpreted differently in some specific way, they start to act like the DM is jerking them around.

So I ask again, what is an example of how you would change your ruling based on what they intend to do after the hypothetical success of step 1?

[NichG]

As far as anecdotal evidence, in the cases where I have seen players withhold information from the DM:

- Two cases were the player knowing that they had something overpowered that they didn't want nerfed (in one case, they wanted to get away with using it; in the other case, it was that they had a theme of playing super-powerful characters who constantly tried to hide their true powers)
- A few cases of 'my character sheet isn't quite right, and if I have to provide details its going to mean a tedious audit/I'll find that the thing I thought was really awesome doesn't actually work that way'
- One case of intentionally trying to create a shocking reveal mind-screw, which didn't actually end up working and just sort of made everyone pissed off (in that particular case, I happened to be the player).
- A few cases of 'the DM explicitly asked not to be told' - not sure you can count these as withholding

Based on those experiences I would definitely say that it should at least be considered to be a warning sign that some sort of bad DM/player dynamic is going on which needs to be addressed.

[Flickerdart]

There isn't. The issue arises when they try to enact all four steps in hypothetical questions asking for rulings in a vacuum, then try to recombine the rulings for their plan to be "DMproof" afterwards. If they invest the resources only to find the rulings are changing slightly or are interpreted differently in some specific way, they start to act like the DM is jerking them around.

See, I think that a ruling should be in a vacuum, because then it's not tainted by the bias of the DM. Physics changing themselves based on why something is happening is something that doesn't sit well with me. An ability that does a thing should do that thing every time. If you make a ruling based on specific contexts, it will bite you in the butt later when your PCs try something else that depends on it working that way. If you don't want them to do that, do you reverse the ruling - and make the thing they did in the past legal?

[Keltest]

See, I think that a ruling should be in a vacuum, because then it's not tainted by the bias of the DM. Physics changing themselves based on why something is happening is something that doesn't sit well with me. An ability that does a thing should do that thing every time. If you make a ruling based on specific contexts, it will bite you in the butt later when your PCs try something else that depends on it working that way. If you don't want them to do that, do you reverse the ruling - and make the thing they did in the past legal?

My thoughts exactly. Why should it matter if that dwarf is eating the iron chest to enter an iron farting contest instead of addressing an iron deficiency? Is there going to be some radically different way he eats the thing?

[NichG]

See, I think that a ruling should be in a vacuum, because then it's not tainted by the bias of the DM. Physics changing themselves based on why something is happening is something that doesn't sit well with me. An ability that does a thing should do that thing every time. If you make a ruling based on specific contexts, it will bite you in the butt later when your PCs try something else that depends on it working that way. If you don't want them to do that, do you reverse the ruling - and make the thing they did in the past legal?

Often, when this kind of ruling is called for, it has to do with something that isn't easily decided just by looking at what's written. The DM is being asked to write a new law of physics right then and there. Its hard to do that on the spot in a way which is going to be completely future proof against every situation that could come up, especially if its being done in a vacuum of knowing what sorts of situations the player envisions it coming up in. On the other hand, if the DM understands why they're being asked to write a new law of physics, it gives them a better idea of what particular consequences they need to pay very close attention to and be careful about, which drastically reduces the chance that later on they'll need to ret-con their ruling because of something broken or stupid.

To put it another way, in the absence of that information, the safest response that the DM can make for the stability of the game is 'no, you can't do that'. However, that's a very limited and constraining way to play. Giving the DM more information better allows them to sometimes say 'sure, and here's how it will work' without worrying that it's going to break things or that they're being tricked into something.

[Flickerdart]

Often, when this kind of ruling is called for, it has to do with something that isn't easily decided just by looking at what's written. The DM is being asked to write a new law of physics right then and there. Its hard to do that on the spot in a way which is going to be completely future proof against every situation that could come up, especially if its being done in a vacuum of knowing what sorts of situations the player envisions it coming up in. On the other hand, if the DM understands why they're being asked to write a new law of physics, it gives them a better idea of what particular consequences they need to pay very close attention to and be careful about, which drastically reduces the chance that later on they'll need to ret-con their ruling because of something broken or stupid.

To put it another way, in the absence of that information, the safest response that the DM can make for the stability of the game is 'no, you can't do that'. However, that's a very limited and constraining way to play. Giving the DM more information better allows them to sometimes say 'sure, and here's how it will work' without worrying that it's going to break things or that they're being tricked into something.

As long as we're giving credence to anecdotal evidence, I've never had to reverse a ruling, and I also never pump my players for information on what they want to do beforehand. Some rules combine together to have powerful results, and others don't; I always strive to make rulings that approximate RAI as best as possible, and that means not caring about the circumstances in which the ruling is requested. A ruling resulting in consequences is no different than a cut-and-dry rule resulting in consequences, but I don't go around changing those just because the players want to do something I don't like.

[NichG]

As long as we're giving credence to anecdotal evidence, I've never had to reverse a ruling, and I also never pump my players for information on what they want to do beforehand. Some rules combine together to have powerful results, and others don't; I always strive to make rulings that approximate RAI as best as possible, and that means not caring about the circumstances in which the ruling is requested. A ruling resulting in consequences is no different than a cut-and-dry rule resulting in consequences, but I don't go around changing those just because the players want to do something I don't like.

Whereas I'm strongly of the opinion that RAW and RAI matter less than the game being a stable and enjoyable experience. If that means that the in-game laws of physics have to glitch and change so that the game remains playable, that's still the lesser of two evils.

And of course the gentleman's agreement remains one of the best tools to avoid that kind of situation. That's another reason to get information from the player about what they're planning - so if it's going to be disruptive, you can say 'hey, you do realize that this will make wealth irrelevant, right?' or things like that.

[Flickerdart]

Whereas I'm strongly of the opinion that RAW and RAI matter less than the game being a stable and enjoyable experience. If that means that the in-game laws of physics have to glitch and change so that the game remains playable, that's still the lesser of two evils.

And of course the gentleman's agreement remains one of the best tools to avoid that kind of situation. That's another reason to get information from the player about what they're planning - so if it's going to be disruptive, you can say 'hey, you do realize that this will make wealth irrelevant, right?' or things like that.

Players are not going to do anything that makes the game less enjoyable for them. They also know full well what the consequences of their actions will be (with the information they have, of course - any on-the-spot rulings by the DM will blindside them and make them incapable of planning), and if they're doing it anyway that means that's what they find fun. Being passive-aggressive about it isn't the way to make the game better.

[Tiktik Ironclaw]

I can't really say what kind of DM I am, as I've only run a few sessions here and there for my one friend (who refuses to create more than one character, making it very hard to create survivable adventures). I started out with a kind of listing campaign about a massive war that was divided between elves and every other race except orcs, which I now try to avoid. My next attempt was to create 20 adventures, each taking him up a level, but we got into the fourth one and the session ended, and he lost the character sheet after a few weeks (he has a lot of after school activities, whereas I'm not involved in anything) so I ran Tomb of Horrors with his Boccob cleric that didn't role play, while I ran five other characters to balance everything, and the hobgoblin fighter railroaded everybody around the dangerous traps and the elf rogue walked into the nudifying traps three times, because I made her.
That 20 adventure solo campaign was exceptionally bad with railroading, in that I even WROTE WHAT HE DID. It's fun to read and imagine, with some intrigue and Assassin's Creed style acrobatics, but it wouldn't have been good if I made it there. I want to vomit just seeing that I wrote it. He probably wouldn't have minded it, seeing that I roleplayed the character more than he did.
My current DM project is to make a fun and interactive world with several campaigns to pick from, which I will then advance from for each group, progressing the campaign world through time. The setting is a combination of Westeros, the OOTS-verse, Looking for Group, Monty Python and the Holy Grail, the Princess Bride, and general D&D stuff. Example campaigns are the return of Daenerys (which is just Red Hand of Doom with Unsullied and Wee Jas clerics), a quest for the Holy Grail with King Arthur, stopping Xykon from destroying Redcloak's expansive goblinoid nation, and going through major adventure sites while battling tomb raiders from an evil woven nation devoted to conquest. Hopefully this comes to fruition.

[Flickerdart]

The setting is a combination of Westeros, the OOTS-verse, Looking for Group, Monty Python and the Holy Grail, the Princess Bride, and general D&D stuff.

So...a grimdark setting spliced with comedy? That risks all sorts of mood whiplash.

[NichG]

Players are not going to do anything that makes the game less enjoyable for them. They also know full well what the consequences of their actions will be (with the information they have, of course - any on-the-spot rulings by the DM will blindside them and make them incapable of planning), and if they're doing it anyway that means that's what they find fun. Being passive-aggressive about it isn't the way to make the game better.

I don't know who you've been playing with, but IME players do things that make the game less enjoyable for them all the time. I've seen that both from the point of view of the GM and as a fellow player. I've seen players look for ways to rush character growth and then get bored when they're basically 'done' with their character's main trick (e.g. getting past WBL or fast-tracking to high levels, then running out of game to play). I've seen players set challenges or artificial limits for themselves and then get bitter about the fact that their characters aren't able to keep up. I've even seen players pull out very extreme combos to do tens of thousands of damage per round, and then realize that it's no different than doing 500 damage per round and get bored with big numbers in general. I've seen players sacrifice the fun of others at the table for their own jollies, and even sacrifice their own fun out of feelings of guilt towards the other players.

People aren't perfect beings. Players and GMs both make errors in judgement that do interfere with their enjoyment and the enjoyment of others at the table. The thing to do in those cases is to admit that a mistake was made and fix it, rather than just shrugging and saying 'well, thats the precedent now, gotta live with it'.

[Segev]

Players won't do things to make a game (immediately) less enjoyable for themselves...but they might do so in ways that make it less so for the other players (intentionally or not).

As a general rule, I'm very permissive as a DM. However, I don't like having "surprises" sprung on me by players in the form of "clever plans." I don't mind genuinely clever ideas, but "clever plans" typically are based on huge assumptions and not a little god-moding with the hope that retconning will be too uncomfortable. It's a form of refuge in audacity. I don't mind players doing awesome things; I just prefer to be complicit in it in the form of knowing about it when they plan it out so that I can already have thought out what the outcome will be.

I'm a smart man, but I'm not quick on the draw. I do not improvise well.

And often, the way that the piecemeil "rule on this in a vacuum" things have been presented by those who know they're pushing the boundaries will present it as a stand-alone "this is too cool not to allow" thing. And it often is very cool. Being a permissive DM, I am inclined to permit it. But after 3-4 of these, a rule I had not thought of that already exists turns out to interact with these permissive rulings to create something which obliterates encounters. Not a problem in and of itself, except that it becomes "PC Cleverplans and his audience of other PCs granted permission to be present while he's awesome."

Or, worse, the player enacts the "clever plan," and I tell him "no," because while each of those abilities work the way I ruled individually, when put together like that, the edge cases ignored by the vacuum ruling come into play to make it patently ludicrous. e.g., Tower Shields grant cover, right? Sure. Cover lets me hide, right? Sure. My Tower Shield is my equipment, right? Sure. My equipment is hidden when I'm hidden, right? Sure. So I can hide behind my Tower Shield and have it be hidden behind itself! Uh....

Each statement, in a vacuum, is perfectly reasonable to rule as "okay." It's only when taken together to achieve that (per-RAW legal!) rules glitch that the problem is revealed.

If the player had told me, "So I have this idea for hiding behind my shield and hiding my shield behind itself to achieve invisibility," I'd have said "no, there's no way that will work, but please lay out the plan." I could even have my mind changed if he had something that did make sense. If a player had waited until the thick of the action to reveal his "clever plan" based on all those rulings, and everything hinged on it working...he'd now feel cheated that I'm changing the rules on him, despite the obvious glitch in the rulings which was not so obvious before, and despite this clearly not making sense in the context of the individual rulings nor all together. And now his character may well go from invinicibly winning the encounter to seriously in danger of dying, and it's "Segev's fault." Such Segfaults are preferably avoided.

[Flickerdart]

I don't know who you've been playing with, but IME players do things that make the game less enjoyable for them all the time. I've seen that both from the point of view of the GM and as a fellow player. I've seen players look for ways to rush character growth and then get bored when they're basically 'done' with their character's main trick (e.g. getting past WBL or fast-tracking to high levels, then running out of game to play). I've seen players set challenges or artificial limits for themselves and then get bitter about the fact that their characters aren't able to keep up. I've even seen players pull out very extreme combos to do tens of thousands of damage per round, and then realize that it's no different than doing 500 damage per round and get bored with big numbers in general. I've seen players sacrifice the fun of others at the table for their own jollies, and even sacrifice their own fun out of feelings of guilt towards the other players.

People aren't perfect beings. Players and GMs both make errors in judgement that do interfere with their enjoyment and the enjoyment of others at the table. The thing to do in those cases is to admit that a mistake was made and fix it, rather than just shrugging and saying 'well, thats the precedent now, gotta live with it'.

I see it as my role to make sure my players are never "done" playing the game. A guy who completes the ultimate 10k damage combo is no different than the party defeating the BBEG and claiming his castle and armies - he needs new challenges, that's it.

I'm a smart man, but I'm not quick on the draw. I do not improvise well.

That might be part of it - I'm very good at the speed chess sort of thing.

Or, worse, the player enacts the "clever plan," and I tell him "no," because while each of those abilities work the way I ruled individually, when put together like that, the edge cases ignored by the vacuum ruling come into play to make it patently ludicrous. e.g., Tower Shields grant cover, right? Sure. Cover lets me hide, right? Sure. My Tower Shield is my equipment, right? Sure. My equipment is hidden when I'm hidden, right? Sure. So I can hide behind my Tower Shield and have it be hidden behind itself! Uh....

Each statement, in a vacuum, is perfectly reasonable to rule as "okay." It's only when taken together to achieve that (per-RAW legal!) rules glitch that the problem is revealed.

Your equipment is not always hidden when you are. For instance, you might be carrying a ladder, and then hide behind a tree. You are hidden, but your ladder is not. In a vacuum, that's the one that's problematic, and hey - it also happens to fix the tower shield thing!

[NichG]

I see it as my role to make sure my players are never "done" playing the game. A guy who completes the ultimate 10k damage combo is no different than the party defeating the BBEG and claiming his castle and armies - he needs new challenges, that's it.

Sure, and in his case he took that upon himself somewhat with his next character, because he realized that the damage race was boring and wanted to try something else. However, that doesn't change the fact that he basically was running headlong at 'I want to make my damage as gross as possible' and then realized that he had made himself bored. Its not necessarily a bad outcome in the big picture (its not like he quit tabletop games over it or anything), but its an example where chasing something that appeared to have the immediate consequence of increasing his fun ended up causing problems for his enjoyment of that character in the long run.

[ShaneMRoth]

See, I think that a ruling should be in a vacuum, because then it's not tainted by the bias of the DM.

DM bias can be abused, and can be exercised in bad faith.

Having said that, DM bias is neither inherently bad nor inherently inappropriate.

If you don't trust your DM, your game experience will suffer.

[ShaneMRoth]

People aren't perfect beings. Players and GMs both make errors in judgement that do interfere with their enjoyment and the enjoyment of others at the table. The thing to do in those cases is to admit that a mistake was made and fix it, rather than just shrugging and saying 'well, thats the precedent now, gotta live with it'.

I concur strongly with the spirit and the letter of this statement.

[goto124]

If the player had told me, "So I have this idea for hiding behind my shield and hiding my shield behind itself to achieve invisibility," I'd have said "no, there's no way that will work, but please lay out the plan."

You left out the entire table laughing.

[Segev]

Your equipment is not always hidden when you are. For instance, you might be carrying a ladder, and then hide behind a tree. You are hidden, but your ladder is not. In a vacuum, that's the one that's problematic, and hey - it also happens to fix the tower shield thing!

Sure, but my point was more in how the "argument" was laid out for this "clever plan." One of the rulings the DM is "tricked" into agreeing to is that equipment is hidden if you're hidden. Sure, the DM maybe SHOULD have thought of "well a ladder you're carrying won't be hidden just because you are; it could poke out," but he could be stuck "in the box" thinking about the guy's gear, and considering whether spikey armor aesthetic choices which don't offer a mechanical penalty to stealth should suddenly invalidate successful stealth checks.

Part of it is, thus, that I, as a DM, acknowledge that I can and will make mistakes, and that sometimes I'll need to correct them on the fly. I won't let my mistakes corner me into stupidly silly situations.

You left out the entire table laughing.

Well, yes, but that's because I'm used to that. We make ludicrous suggestions as jokes all the time!