© 2014. All rights reserved.
© 2014. All rights reserved.
Note: I don't agree with everything Rich says in the following article. Obviously, when the text reads "In My Games:", Rich is speaking about HIS game, not mine. If my opinion on a particular topic is largely different than Rich's, I'll say so in a paragraph formatted like this one, preceded by "Note:". In addition, a few small, grammatical edits have been made for readability, but only so long as the substance of the writing was not corrupted.
by Rich Burlew, sometime in 2004
original link (broken) -- Internet Archive link
There is a whole set of assumptions about how a DM runs his game that are never really discussed when a new game starts. I often think often these are the very things that lead to a flaming trainwreck, a few sessions later, when the players have been operating under a different set of guidelines than the DM.
I'm not talking about things like the campaign setting or the theme for a particular campaign; I'm talking about the underlying principles of playing in a roleplaying game; the things that form the foundation for being able to tell a cooperative story.
Some people believe the PCs are born heroes, and that the universe should be constructed in such a way as to make every session challenging but ultimately very beatable.
Others believe that the world is the world, and the PCs are just another group of adventurers. In such a world, it is the player's responsibility to make sure they don't walk into a battle that is way too tough for them. The players could stumble into a red dragon's lair at 1st level, and the DM would decree that they had brought it upon themselves.
In My Games: I consider my games to fall somewhere in the middle of these two extremes. There will probably be a fair amount of "happy coincidences" in the level of monsters the PCs fight, but it will always be possible to get in over your head, especially through bad (or no) planning.
This may seem strange, but I know that in some games, the DM changes the plot to make whatever the PCs decide to do end up being the right thing.
In other games, the DM will run a combat in the way it was conceived, even if the PCs make the worst tactical mistakes possible. The latter game is usually more deadly, because it requires the players to predict what sort of mistakes would be disastrous and then not commit them. It is also more realistic.
In My Games: Players are responsible if they do stupid things, and they hopefully learn not to do them again. Or they get killed.
In a static game, nothing happens except when the PCs are in the room. Lots of early D&D dungeons went with this method, and it is simple but wildly unrealistic.
In an active game, a situation can often occur "off-camera" of which the PCs aren't aware, and may NEVER be aware. Things may happen that won't make sense until later, when the secrets are revealed, or may never make sense.
I'll be honest, this latter type of world is MUCH harder for the DM to run, because it means keeping track of things that are going on in other places, all the time. One of the drawbacks is that it requires trust on the part of the players that the DM is not just making things up to screw them; if the players are suspicious of the DM, they are likely to conclude that things are unfair.
In My Games: I use a mostly active world. In my last RL campaign, there were plots unfolding over the course of a year (real time) that happened entirely off-camera. Plot threads dangled for months before making sense to the PCs. It is completely unreasonable in my game for a player to expect that they necessarily will have access to all of the events influencing the present. On the other hand, on the small scale, certain encounters will happen only when the heroes enter the area. There's not much point in having wounded herald stumble into the throne room when the heroes aren't there to hear his message.
Note: I prefer a more active world, but as Rich points out, this type of world is MUCH harder to run. The heavy cost in time to keep up with such a campaign is difficult for me to pay. For that reason, I tend to aspire to an active world, and my player's should expect the aforementioned "off-camera" activity, but reality tends to swing things in a more static direction.
In some games, all Spot/Listen/Search/Sense Motive checks are rolled by the players, and the information earned through a success if given out loud. Players may even be in charge of determining when to make such a roll, such as by saying, "I want to make a Spot check," and then rolling it.
In other games, the DM rolls checks in secret and passes notes back and forth (or otherwise communicates) with the people who succeeded.
In the latter type of game, the players with low Spot and Listen scores will probably feel like things are jumping out of the bushes all the time at them and they have no chance to see them. But, then, that would probably be how the character feels too! This too requires trust between the players and DM; if the players don't believe the DM is trustworthy, they will assume he fudged all rolls that led to their surprise.
In My Games: The only time I don't use the note method is when it is something that is about to be irrelevant anyway, such someone springing from the bushes in such a way that he can't possibly be hidden afterwards. It is the responsibility of the players to either share or not share information they get from such notes.
Note: This is another topic where I prefer to give players only that information that their characters would receive, but the logistics of this preference can become cumbersome. I have also found that many players become overly paranoid regarding the contents of those notes they weren't personally privy to. For these reasons, I usually look for some happy middle-ground. If keeping certain information secret is dramatically interesting, I will endeavor to do so. Otherwise, I try to trust my players to keep out-of-game knowledge from interfering with in-game activities.
In some games, monsters pretty much charge the PCs and try to just beat them down. Every time. Normal human warriors fight to the death over any situation.
In other games, the monsters use every advantage they have to ensure their own survival: terrain, cover, concealment, escape, treachery, deception, flanking, the 5-foot-step, reach, feat selection, even surrender are all part of the NPC's bag of potential tricks, assuming they are smart enough to figure them out. If a creature has a missile weapon, they will take cover behind something. If they can get higher ground, they will. If they can run with their lives, they will. And if they can get reliable advance notice of the arrival of the PCs, they will use all of these advantages and more. According to one theory of war, in a standard battle, the defender chooses where and the attacker chooses when. An ambush, however, is when one side accidentally allows the other side to choose where AND when, and it is usually a slaughter.
In My Games: NPCs do not want to die, and will do what they can to prevent it. PCs are encouraged to think the same way rather than walking into battle after battle. If you're not taking cover, you are saying, "I am OK with being shot at."
Often, players assume that if an allied NPC says something, it must be information that the DM is trying to impart to the players.
In more roleplaying-intensive games, however, the NPC will have his own hopes, dreams, and desires that may even directly contradict what the DM wants.
In My Games: NPCs tend to say what they are thinking, not what I am thinking. Often, I have NPCs bring up points that are deliberately false (though the NPC doesn't know this) as a way of helping the players "shake out" false leads from a mystery.
During my last game, I was blessed to have two NPCs with entirely conflicting viewpoints: a battle-hungry warrior and a pacifist cleric (later, this conveniently switched to an enchantress and a warrior-cleric). I was able to have them present two opposing viewpoints on any situation that would then have to be judged by the players through the filter of their personalities and knowledge. Thus, I was helping the players by giving them things to think about while still not handing them the answer.
For some DMs, being impartial is more important than having the story go the way they want.
For others, the story is King and they will bend the rules as they see fit in order to let their villain escape or to capture the PCs.
In My Games: I divorce myself from the plot when I am making game rule decisions. Whether or not I want the bad guy to get away, if you come up with a way to stop him and succeed, he will be stopped.
That being said, it is entirely appropriate for the villain to have means to stop you from preventing his escape, and I won't hesitate to give intelligent villains those means when I am statting them.
This one doesn't involve the DM at all.
Some players will turn and share every scrap of information their character gets with the rest of the party, while others will hoard their secrets until the perfect dramatic moment.
In My Games: I leave this choice up to my players, but I don't allow one player to get angry with another for keeping secrets.
In most games there is a point where the DM will no longer allow arguing about the rules. Although I have seen games where the players are allowed to continue to argue forever: the game falls apart, or the DM caves in even though he believes he is right.
In My Games: A player can argue as long as they continue to present new information. Once they get to the point where they are restating evidence I have already looked at and rejected, we're moving on.
Note: Some thoughts from the source:
Cooperate with the Dungeon Master and respect his decisions; if you disagree, present your viewpoint with deference to his position as game moderator. Be prepared to accept his decision as final and remember that not everything in the game will always go your way! (PHB, Mike Carr 2)
... and the final word, from the man himself:
It is the spirit of the game, not the letter of the rules, which is important. Never hold to the letter written, nor allow some barracks room lawyer to force quotations from the rule book upon you, if it goes against the intent of the game. As you hew the line with respect to conformity to major systems and uniformity of play in general, also be certain the game is mastered by you and not by your players. Within the broad parameters given in the Advanced Dungeons & Dragons Volumes, you are creator and final arbiter. By ordering things as they should be, the game as a whole first, your campaign next, and your participants therafter, you will be playing Advanced Dungeons & Dragons as it was meant to be. May you find as much pleasure in so doing as the rest of us do! (DMG, Gary Gygax 230)
What I mean by this is whether the game is casual or serious. Not that it can't be funny and serious; what I'm saying is, does the DM expect the players to care deeply about what is going on, or is the game largely a social activity?
Will the players keep track of things that happened last session on their own?
Will they mentally turn the latest ongoing mystery over and over in the shower five days later?
Or will they forget the name of the city they are in five minutes after they are told it?
An intense game can be a very rewarding experience, but it is also a lot of work. Not everyone enjoys putting that much energy into their game. The problem is, these games can only come to life when all the players are on board.
In My Games: I only DM intense games. Or rather, I always try to make my games intense. I want to play the emotions of my players like a fine violin. I want to spin a tale of such scope that it begins to invade my player's dreams.
I have had varying degrees of success; I know there are people reading this who will have immediate visceral reaction to the name "Goldblade." And my campaigns definitely invade my life; I keep a tape recorder by my bed because I got tired of losing perfect plot twists I thought up as I fell asleep.