Bribing the gamemaster-acceptable?

[Geddy2112]

Or DM, or fatemaster, or keeper, or whatever system specific leader.

I am currently running a pathfinder game, and as the DM, I have setting specific guidelines and established setting lore. A few things being that gunpowder exists, but firearms do not, gnomes do not exist, and that orcs/goblins/drow are not playable races. I also don't allow homebrew, and any 3rd party material gets reviewed first.

However, I will allow homebrew, guns, 3rd party, and banned races if I am bribed to do so. I prefer snacks/drinks/food. I have been open and totally upfront about setting specifics and the fact I can be bribed to break established setting canon from the get go. Several players in my campaign have decided to take me up on this offer and have bribed me to play homebrew races or monsterous races. I still have final say as to what is allowed and I have to review it before I even decide to take payment to allow something, and how much I will let it impact the greater cosmology.

I will also say that I cannot be bribed for plot armor, pay-to-win, or anything along those lines. I am saying in a world with no gnomes, you can bring me pizza and make gnomes exist.

So playground, would you/do you play and/or DM in games like this? If you have, what are your experiences with having your DM being openly on the take.

[hymer]

I take my bribes in contribution to the game, not to all the air in my spare tire. Taking the time to write synopses of sessions, making a detailed background, or saying or doing something I consider clever or showing you've paid attention - these are things I allow myself to be bribed with.
I think I might be mildly offended at your scheme, at least at the outset. But hopefully I could bribe you to disallow gnomes, as long as my bribe is greater than the one(s) bribing them into existence?
But seriously, it strikes me as mildly wrong to let commercial self-interests govern the campaign world.

[Inevitability]

Everyone is fine with it, you're not breaking any laws and you're not harming anyone: I don't see the problem here.

[veti]

As long as the whole thing is openly conducted and equally available to everyone, I see no problem here.

I'm forever reading advice on this site that the DM should be open to negotiation with players to build a world co-operatively, and I think that's a fair enough idea if the DM is happy with it. What's wrong with pizza being part of that negotiation?

[2D8HP]

Bribery?

No.

Correct behavior?

Yes

I can't stress this enough; purely by coincidence, if player's want to avoid "random wandering monsters" such as the Purple worm!,

they need to get pizza with the right toppings!

[Anonymouswizard]

I think I might be mildly offended at your scheme, at least at the outset.

I think this is the key. If it was fairly established at the beginning I personally wouldn't like it, although I might cook something in order to get a race/class/power that's not on the list but fits my character concept.

Now, morally I have no problem with what you're doing. Heck, I'm planning to bribe players in my next game (if you bring food for the table you get an extra Fate Point at the start of the session) because otherwise either people stick to their own food or only one person brings something. It's actually the 'breaking established setting facts' thing that annoys me more than the bribery in this case, although it would be different if it was money rather than some food I can probably cook for a couple of pounds (no, really, I've got many tasty things I can cook for about £2 per person, assuming I get a real stove and not an electric one).

[Deophaun]

I will also say that I cannot be bribed for plot armor

What about horse armor?

I am saying in a world with no gnomes, you can bring me pizza and make gnomes exist.

The term nowadays is not "bribery;" It's "paid DLC."

[Kelb_Panthera]

On principle, I couldn't agree to this. It's the same as using cheat codes or glitches in a video game to me. I wouldn't go do far as to turn down gaming with a friend that ran things this way but I probably would with a stranger.

[icefractal]

I'm ok with ephemeral rewards for out of game stuff - action points, buff for the session, whatever. But permanent stuff seems a bit off.

In this particular case, my chain of thought would be:
1) If you're willing to have guns / goblins / whatever exist for the price of a bag of chips, then its absence can't have been very important to your setting.
2) If it wasn't that big a deal, why did you ban it in the first place? Bans should have a reason.
3) This is a bit much like DLC.

Although the idea of "only things from this specific setting, but each player gets to add a thing or two to the setting" seems workable.

[Winter_Wolf]

I'm not terribly in favor of bribery. The exception being getting my own personal copy (for keeps, forever, no take backs) of game supplements. The understanding being that if you want something in the game, and I'm at all open to the possibility, I have my very own reference copy of it. And I'm not keeping it for the length of a campaign, it is literally mine until it disintegrates.

Chances are, I'll already have the supplement if I'm interested in including things from it on my game. Otherwise, I'll just politely decline based on having made my outline for the game already. Besides, what do you do when there are people who can't afford to engage in bribery? The resentment would ruin my game, I think.

[Tanarii]

I'd totally take a fat wad of bills to change my intended campaign rules before the first session ran.

Other than that, I'd consider buttering me up with stuff (chips, soda, whatever) as a prelude to explain the reason I should make those changes, without any cash being involved, as an intelligent negotiation & persuasion tactic, not bribery. Plus is sure beats appeals to emotion, throwing a fit, or other rhetorical tricks.

[Genth]

It's even better when the 'bribe' is something the GM needs. In my group, the only player with a car at the time used his driving capability to get an extra spaceship from the GM once! :D

So totally depends on your group

[Sajiri]

I think it might be better if the 'bribe' was in contribution to the whole group. Sure you can bring a pizza to be allowed to play gnomes, but the whole group gets to share it instead of just the DM. As it is it does sound kinda like a paid DLC type thing. If it's so easy to get back into the game it mustnt have had much impact whether it was banned or not, so then why bother banning it in the first place other than to make people 'pay' you just to be allowed to use it?

[Brookshw]

I use to give xp for whoever walked downstairs to get me coffee when I ran games on the 3rd floor and the coffee maker was on the 1st.

[SethoMarkus]

On principle, I couldn't agree to this. It's the same as using cheat codes or glitches in a video game to me. I wouldn't go do far as to turn down gaming with a friend that ran things this way but I probably would with a stranger.

A rare instance that I am in complete agreement with Kelb. I don't think you are doing anything "wrong", your group is fine with it after all, but I find something, distasteful?, about it...

Although, I would allow in-game concessions to renegotiate established lore. "Can I play a gnome? I know they don't exist in this setting, but she can be a trans-dimensional traveller who was stranded here!" "Alright, but the gnome has to be a level under the rest of the party at start and you can't play a silly stereotype."

[Khedrac]

I don't think this is bribery - because you are up-front about the ability to purchase extra options.

Most free-to-play games (tablet or MMO) now offer purchasable options. It's not bribery, it is merely a non-level playing area (and since D&D is not level anyway...).

Incidentally I don't mean to insult with the comparison with free-to-play in-game purchases, I think what you offer is actually reasonably ethical it a way most of those are not.

[Professor Chimp]

I always appreciate players trying to earn my favor with bribes. That's right, sacrifice that fine food and drink to your god. Like any good god, I will then not listen. Thanks for the good stuff though.

[Lemmy]

Yeah... No.

I wouldn't ever offer or accept bribes. Nor would I play with a GM who did.

It's one thing to share the bill for the pizza or do a favor for your friend(s)... But paying/charging for in-game benefits? That's very unethical IMO. All it does is encourage the GM to remove perfectly fine options from the game and sell them as "paid DLC". I don't tolerate that sort of scam from strangers, I don't see why I'd tolerate it from a "friend".

This is not just the GM's game. If you (generic "you") demand money for accepting suggestions/requests from your friends, then you're not a good GM. And probably not a good friend either.

[Jay R]

You're being completely open, honest, and even-handed. The same options are open to everybody, on the same terms. The rules are clear and straightforward.

You're also trying to exploit your friends. I wouldn't play.

[And I generally bring pizza to the game - because it's a polite thing to do. But I wouldn't to it for personal in-character gain.]

[AMFV]

Well to be fair, if you're presetting a value for certain things and telling everybody about it. It isn't really a bribe, it's a service charge. For example I go to PENNDOT and get my license renewed, I have to hand somebody money, some portion of which will eventually pay their salary. That's a service charge, and that's alright. If I go to a Notary to get a registration renewed, I pay them directly. A bribe is inherently clandestine and illegal. So I guess you'd be asking if service charges in a game are acceptable.

Here is my take:

Nope. For several reasons First, because it implies that the DM is somehow a more worthy position than others. But in this case the DM retains the power over all of the interactions, rather than the customer (the PCs). If the players are paying for a game, then they should get whatever they want in terms of that game, because they're buying a service from you. If you're just playing with people because it's fun then that's different. Of course, it's fine for players to agree to reward a DM for his hard work, to motivate him to continue to spend hours on stuff, or to pay into group funds for the game so that it can have nice things (miniatures, models etc.), but the second the DM starts asking for money, it's no longer just a fun thing with friends, it's now a business contract, and that makes for a dynamic that is likely to make a game unfun

I've had games where this was the case, and it was profoundly not fun for me. The DM charged everybody, used the money (or some portion of it) to buy miniatures which he then kept. It was very frustrating and felt deeply unfair. I'm not such an awful player and friend that I should need to pay-to-play a game that I enjoy playing. Because the DM should be getting equal enjoyment.

[Socratov]

I think that in the form you presented that it is.

You are being open and up-front about it: this creates a level bribing field.

You consider the prize and the reward (so no guaranteed bribes taken) so you can make a judgement call of what is acceptable.

Teh bribes are not applicable to PC centric things, just to whatever lives in the setting or is present in the setting or not. I think that's fair.

Really think about it: you have an idea of how the game is supposed to be going and how the setting should be. It will take you work to work in last minute things like other races, techology, etc. and to make them internally consistent. So if someone asks you to do more work on top of your regular effort to make a world/setting, why not get something out of it?

Yup totally fair.

[RazorChain]

Or DM, or fatemaster, or keeper, or whatever system specific leader.

I am currently running a pathfinder game, and as the DM, I have setting specific guidelines and established setting lore. A few things being that gunpowder exists, but firearms do not, gnomes do not exist, and that orcs/goblins/drow are not playable races. I also don't allow homebrew, and any 3rd party material gets reviewed first.

However, I will allow homebrew, guns, 3rd party, and banned races if I am bribed to do so. I prefer snacks/drinks/food. I have been open and totally upfront about setting specifics and the fact I can be bribed to break established setting canon from the get go. Several players in my campaign have decided to take me up on this offer and have bribed me to play homebrew races or monsterous races. I still have final say as to what is allowed and I have to review it before I even decide to take payment to allow something, and how much I will let it impact the greater cosmology.

I will also say that I cannot be bribed for plot armor, pay-to-win, or anything along those lines. I am saying in a world with no gnomes, you can bring me pizza and make gnomes exist.

So playground, would you/do you play and/or DM in games like this? If you have, what are your experiences with having your DM being openly on the take.

100 bucks and I get to be the chosen one with plot armor?

I mean we know your selling, now we are just discussing price and what you have to offer.

500 bucks and you tailor your campaign to my character?

1000 bucks and I really call the shots, just without the other players knowing?

[Lorsa]

You're being completely open, honest, and even-handed. The same options are open to everybody, on the same terms. The rules are clear and straightforward.

You're also trying to exploit your friends. I wouldn't play.

[And I generally bring pizza to the game - because it's a polite thing to do. But I wouldn't to it for personal in-character gain.]

Exactly what this guy said.

Well put Jay R.

[Ezeze]

I think it might be better if the 'bribe' was in contribution to the whole group. Sure you can bring a pizza to be allowed to play gnomes, but the whole group gets to share it instead of just the DM.

This.


I also think this might be a little bit brilliant if you wanted, for example, a species or class or what have you to be rare but not non-existent. For example - you are running a Star Wars game and everyone wants to be a Jedi. You want a Jedi in the group, but not for everyone to be one? "Whoever brings the pizza gets to be the Jedi!" seems as equitable a system as any

[kyoryu]

I'm not a big fan of the idea as presented. If you're willing to be flexible on setting canon, be flexible.

That said, I have a standard rule in my games that bringing snacks enough for the table to partake in is worth an extra Fate Point/bennie/reroll/whatever. It's a small enough bonus that I think it's doable, and encourages people to bring snacks and spread the cost.

[Tanarii]

1000 bucks and I really call the shots, just without the other players knowing?

That one sounds win-win for the DM. Provided he's not sinking a long-standing campaign for it.

[JenBurdoo]

Play Munchkin D20. It's basically sourcebooks for DnD 3.0/3.5 with stuff from the Munchkin card game. There are cheats feats for Bribing the GM and Being the GM's Girlfriend. The Master's Screen includes a chart of non-combat XP awards, including:

Buying this screen for your DM - 10,000
Buying the DM a Coke - 100
Buying the DM a pizza - 1,000
Telling the DM when players fudge die rolls - 250
Not telling the other players when DM fudges die rolls - 1,250
Backing the DM up on a rules call - 500 if he's right, 1,000 if he's wrong
Providing snacks for the group - 750, 1,000 if only the GM likes them
Unadulterated bribery - 200 per dollar
Actually roleplaying your character - You are so in the wrong game.

[Cernor]

I also think this might be a little bit brilliant if you wanted, for example, a species or class or what have you to be rare but not non-existent. For example - you are running a Star Wars game and everyone wants to be a Jedi. You want a Jedi in the group, but not for everyone to be one? "Whoever brings the pizza gets to be the Jedi!" seems as equitable a system as any

Even the worst-case scenario is a win-win situation; the game is imbalanced because you have 3-6 Jedi, but at least you have 3-6 pizzas as well!

[2D8HP]

To be serious (for a change! ) the scheme sounds horrible, not for your players, but horrible for you.
It turns a hobby into a job, a poorly paid job.
Studies have shown that for many, once you accept pay, games become chores.
As for me I spend far too much of my life driving to, driving from, and doing paid work (I'm also the guy at my shop who turns down the most overtime because, as I say, "There's a word for guys who work lots of overtime. The word is divorced").
If you have to be paid, to do it, it's time to turn in the screen.

[SirBellias]

Meh. Nah. I'd rather be flexible on setting lore and such regardless of bribes. The normal rules of persuasion apply only because they can't be helped, but as soon as anything tangible trades hands purely as an incentive for DM leniency, I'm not taking it. And since I'm usually the DM, that would probably lead to some issues if anyone ever tried.