What kind of advice should DM/GM guides give?

[Kuri Näkk]

only a fraction of the content depends on players’ actions. A player may ask: "Do I find something of value in the chest?" and the GM responds but whether and what the player actually finds is not dependent on the player's decision to search the chest.

One hundred percent of the content depends on the players, including the MC, interacting with it.

You seem to be losing focus. Nobody has said that the content of the game is not the result of players and the GM interacting with it, whatever “interacting” means in the sentence. You claimed that, in total, there is nothing unique about GM's role compared to the players. This is the statement that I consider ridiculous. GM is not a god or the sole authority in the game but GM’s position is obviously unique.

The MC populates the world with whatever stuff they want. The characters are under no obligation to interact with any particular part of it. To whit: The MC puts a door in the supernatural nightclub with a big lock on it, but the players ignore it and instead chat up drunk patrons, eventually leaving to go find a sleazier club. What was in the door? Answer: it'd doesn't matter. It will never matter because the players did not deign to find out.

I have seen a few GMs going on power trips. I do not think that I have ever seen a player doing that. Like „I can totally not open the door! I am the master of the game!“ Hilarious. What if a NPC sticks a dagger between the ribs of your PC. Can you totally ignore that as well?

You fail to understand that the question is NOT whether you open the door. The question is: how come there is a door in the first place? Guess what, the GM decided to put it there. Maybe he drew a map „off-screen“. And no, player actions had nothing to do with the decision.

Are you really so naïve as to believe that you can avoid the encounter or information behind the door by not opening it? This is not the way it works. This is a game not a simulation. If the information is critical for the advancement of the plot or if the GM is the railroading type you will come to the information/encounter no matter what. Your decision to not open the door accomplishes nothing. The content that GMs generate ‘off-screen’ can very much drive the game.

Surprise! The rules only partly cover NPC actions. Besides, the GM determines conditions for actions, which directly impact the likelihood of accomplishing the tasks. A player cannot do this.

Those not included as actions in the game are tantamount to flavor text, which the MC does not have a monopoly on. The MC determines difficulty according to the rules in the same way players decide whether they've bought armor or if they cast Grease on a slope. Everyone is capable of altering the conditions under which a character conducts a test using the things spelled out in the rules.

An evil boss decides to send a minion against your PC [flavour text] You meet the minion in the nightclub [flavour text] You ignore the minion because you can. The GM decides that your refusal to talk with the minion provokes the minion and the minion attacks. [Flavour text] However, your clever PC had expected a fight and brought an armor. (The decision had nothing do to with a hint dropped by a friendly NPC that the evil boss wants you dead) Thanks to the armor the minion’s attack misses. You choose to direct the events of the game with your awesome player powers and you attack the minion. Your attack wounds the minion. It tries to escape [flavour text] through the door [which is there thanks to flavour text]. It runs outside [flavour text]. It is raining [flavour text], which makes the pavement very slippery. [this seems natural but is not direclty based on rules, so flavour text] The minion has high Dex and other bonuses to balance [GM’s earlier decisions based on…flavour text ] The player, on the other hand, has decided to bring the armor which gives penalties to the test. The player, being the master of the situation, totally decides not to pursue the minion.

[violence in the media]

Are you really so naïve as to believe that you can avoid the encounter or information behind the door by not opening it? This is not the way it works. This is a game not a simulation. If the information is critical for the advancement of the plot or if the GM is the railroading type you will come to the information/encounter no matter what. Your decision to not open the door accomplishes nothing. The content that GMs generate ‘off-screen’ can very much drive the game.

Are you fucking with us? If your decisions as a player don't matter, why are you even describing it as playing? Do your PCs all just lounge around the bar/whorehouse/opium den because they've figured out that the plot will just come to them eventually?

[Kuri Näkk]

Are you fucking with us? If your decisions as a player don't matter, why are you even describing it as playing? Do your PCs all just lounge around the bar/whorehouse/opium den because they've figured out that the plot will just come to them eventually?

You do not seem to have any experience in GMing. No, I am not fucking with you but railroading GMs do. That is the irritating thing about railroading: you can do very little about it as a player because the GM controls the world. Your only options in the game are to do nothing or die, which are really not options.

BTW, I was refuting the argument that "off-scree" content does not matter, not telling how the game ought to be run.

[violence in the media]

You do not seem to have any experience in GMing. No, I am not fucking with you but railroading GMs do. That is the irritating thing about railroading: you can do very little about it as a player because the GM controls the world. Your only options in the game are to do nothing or die, which are really not options.

BTW, I was refuting the argument that "off-scree" content does not matter, not telling how the game ought to be run.

From the player perspective off-screen content normally doesn't matter to them[/i]--unless you're playing with an MC that is bound and determined to wedge in whatever they came up with, regardless of player input. This is the same basic argument Fuchs keeps making about how when the party decides not to go on one PC's quest for the Burning Scimitar, that the Burning Scimitar will just magically find itself in the path of whatever the party does decide to do. The choice of whether or not to quest for the Scimitar is rendered irrelevant, and that's generally bad.

Where off-screen content does matter to players is when it doesn't exist in a state of flux. If the players decide to leave a dungeon before looting it completely and thus avoid the demon bound on the lower levels that the MC intended them to run into--that player decision only has value if the demon (or another one just like it) doesn't arbitrarily appear in their path anyway so the MC can get his "demon encounters the party" scene. The player decision has even more value if they can discover that they missed the demon, prepare for it, and go back and have the encounter on their terms.

Going back to your "it's a game, not a simulation" statement--if you keep trying to force a plot onto your players, and they keep deliberately trying to avoid it--you need to put the dice down and have a discussion about what you all want.

Related question to all this: When the PCs are in a position to be looking for adventure (as opposed to having it thrust upon them) do you give them multiple options and let them pick what sounds appealing, or roll with it if they suggest something completely different?

MC: "Well, you guys hear that there are people going missing near the sawmill; a bunch of fey creatures have camped out in the town hall; that a local ranger found a strange ruin deep in the woods; and that the baron is looking for someone to exterminate bulette running amok. What do you want to do?"
Players: "We want to go to a cloud castle!"
MC: "That wasn't on the list. But, okay, I can work with that."

Or do you just present them with the one adventure that you want/have ready to run and bend all paths to it?

[Krusk]

Hilarious. What if a NPC sticks a dagger between the ribs of your PC. Can you totally ignore that as well?

Yeah you can.

The DM says "And then the super special assassin NPCs jump out and knife you"

The group rolls their eyes, and you say "Dude thats stupid. That does not happen"

From there either he agrees that it doesn't happen, you give in and accept that the stabbing happens, or the group throws one of the two of you out.

Those are literally the only 4 options, and only 1 involves your PC getting stabbed. (I guess after they throw you out they could decide your PC was stabbed, but thats not a certainty)

[infected slut princess]

Honestly, a lot of you sound like seriously dysfunctional social fuck-ups.

[PoliteNewb]

Honestly, a lot of you sound like seriously dysfunctional social fuck-ups.

I can't help but read your user name and what board you're posting on, and somehow think of an old saying about pots and kettles.

[RadiantPhoenix]

I think the advice, "If the DM thinks he is your boss, fuck him in the eye with a sharp dildo" is essential to all games.

And this is part of why D&DNext is shaping up so terribly.

[shadzar]

Every piece of GM advice I have ever heard from Gary was bad and selfish.

Maybe you should actually rad the 1st DMG rather than going on hearsay from other people? see what the game set up to do, and why the advice is there. ignore his home games, because nobody fucking cares, he didnt publish books for that because he deviated from the "rules" for his home games and did what he wanted, not what the mass public was willing to accept from the game.

read for yourself, and if you cannot comprehend the material ask your English teacher to help you understand it.

To clarify, what is the appeal of being a DM, especially for the posters here? I think a strong case toward that incentive, and rules to making that easy as possible could bring in more DM's. As well the social contract, what questions/queries should it all contain specifically? May sound obvious, but it seems to me RPG groups find the aspect of being on the same page, and communication before the fact of playing, rather anathema in their minds.

When we started, back in 1991, the biggest incentive to be the GM in our group was that someone had to be the GM so we could play at all.

the incentive is in no particular order:
1. to be able to play

2. to be able to do the things others cant as a DM like make up magic items, townspeople with personalities, etc so the game is NOT just a bunch of stick figures with even flatter personalities. (so you do't have Mike Mearls or Dave Noonan type people as DM)

3. to be able to create something and see it outsmarted by a player using unconventional means or ones you hadnt thought of.

4. to steal ideas from your players for when you finally get to play, since they just did #3

5. promote thinking outside the box.

I think the advice, "If the DM thinks he is your boss, fuck him in the eye with a sharp dildo" is essential to all games.

And this is part of why D&DNext is shaping up so terribly.

not even, it is because MEarls is involved with D&D in any way that causes that.

conversely the players are not the DM's boss, is something that should be put in a player guide so these fucktards out their that thinks the DM is their slave...


"If you are running a game and the players constantly was to raost the testicles of the monsters they killed and braid their pubic hair into bracelets, and you do not care for that, or anything else they may do that you do not care for, yet they continue to do it; then pack your belonging up and leave, or if your house then kick the refuse out and to the curb for pickup are your regularly schedule pickup time."

[Leress]

"If you are running a game and the players constantly was to raost the testicles of the monsters they killed and braid their pubic hair into bracelets, and you do not care for that, or anything else they may do that you do not care for, yet they continue to do it; then pack your belonging up and leave, or if your house then kick the refuse out and to the curb for pickup are your regularly schedule pickup time."

Yes this should happen, players don't need to be around some bitch-ass MC because they can't handle players adding flavor text to the adventure.

[Desdan_Mervolam]

At the risk of defending Shadzar, If someone in the party is being edgy for the sake of being edgy and its making people uncomfortable, they should definitely tell that person to knock it the hell off. This includes the GM, on both sides of the question. If this is something that needs to happen on a regular basis, then you need to have a long conversation about what various people want in a game, and whether those wants will be met in that group or not.

[Leress]

At the risk of defending Shadzar, If someone in the party is being edgy for the sake of being edgy and its making people uncomfortable, they should definitely tell that person to knock it the hell off. This includes the GM, on both sides of the question. If this is something that needs to happen on a regular basis, then you need to have a long conversation about what various people want in a game, and whether those wants will be met in that group or not.

I agree with what you are saying, but Shad wrote it like the group was doing something that the MC didn't like and didn't stop when told. So instead of finding out why they are doing it, suggest packing up and leaving over something relatively minor.

[fectin]

Every piece of GM advice I have ever heard from Gary was bad and selfish.

Maybe you should actually rad the 1st DMG rather than going on hearsay from other people? see what the game set up to do, and why the advice is there. ignore his home games, because nobody fucking cares, he didnt publish books for that because he deviated from the "rules" for his home games and did what he wanted, not what the mass public was willing to accept from the game.

read for yourself, and if you cannot comprehend the material ask your English teacher to help you understand it.

On the theory that everything else he produced was poison, but maybe this time will be different? That sure sounds like a good idea.

[shadzar]

you said what you "heard", i said rather than go by hearsay read the material in the book yourself. yes what you hear from others is easily quite different than the printed text could be, so read it for yourself rather than rely on secondhand information and playing the telephone game.

I agree with what you are saying, but Shad wrote it like the group was doing something that the MC didn't like and didn't stop when told. So instead of finding out why they are doing it, suggest packing up and leaving over something relatively minor.

it doesnt matter why. if the game is going to be one that the DM doesnt want to run, there is no discussion needed, the payers want something that is not offered, and the DM need not stick around to tell them. there is ZERO amount of discussion that ever changes people from playing that way so long as they are in the group that "thing" will keep creeping in. all DMs dont have to sit and deal with it as the player learns or others that want to screw around.

the point is the DM is free to leave the game when they wish, just like any other play. the DM is not enslaved to the players like you seem to think they are with your comment.

"relatively minor" is subjective, meaning YOU dont get to decide for everyone what they must be forced to deal with be it content and subject matter, or anything else.

YES, the DM may pack up and leave or kick everyone out when he wishes as he has the right "to leave the game" just as ALL players do.

[Kaelik]

you said what you "heard", i said rather than go by hearsay read the material in the book yourself. yes what you hear from others is easily quite different than the printed text could be, so read it for yourself rather than rely on secondhand information and playing the telephone game.

If you are going to communicate in a text medium, please learn to read. What he said was "Every piece of GM advice I have ever heard from Gary was bad and selfish."

That means he heard the words coming out of Gygax's mouth, and they were shitty advice. That's a hell of a telephone game, from Gygax's mouth to his ears.

[Artless]

only a fraction of the content depends on players’ actions. A player may ask: "Do I find something of value in the chest?" and the GM responds but whether and what the player actually finds is not dependent on the player's decision to search the chest.

One hundred percent of the content depends on the players, including the MC, interacting with it.

You seem to be losing focus. Nobody has said that the content of the game is not the result of players and the GM interacting with it, whatever “interacting” means in the sentence. You claimed that, in total, there is nothing unique about GM's role compared to the players. This is the statement that I consider ridiculous. GM is not a god or the sole authority in the game but GM’s position is obviously unique.

The MC populates the world with whatever stuff they want. The characters are under no obligation to interact with any particular part of it. To whit: The MC puts a door in the supernatural nightclub with a big lock on it, but the players ignore it and instead chat up drunk patrons, eventually leaving to go find a sleazier club. What was in the door? Answer: it'd doesn't matter. It will never matter because the players did not deign to find out.

I have seen a few GMs going on power trips. I do not think that I have ever seen a player doing that. Like „I can totally not open the door! I am the master of the game!“ Hilarious. What if a NPC sticks a dagger between the ribs of your PC. Can you totally ignore that as well?

You fail to understand that the question is NOT whether you open the door. The question is: how come there is a door in the first place? Guess what, the GM decided to put it there. Maybe he drew a map „off-screen“. And no, player actions had nothing to do with the decision.

Are you really so naïve as to believe that you can avoid the encounter or information behind the door by not opening it? This is not the way it works. This is a game not a simulation. If the information is critical for the advancement of the plot or if the GM is the railroading type you will come to the information/encounter no matter what. Your decision to not open the door accomplishes nothing. The content that GMs generate ‘off-screen’ can very much drive the game.

Surprise! The rules only partly cover NPC actions. Besides, the GM determines conditions for actions, which directly impact the likelihood of accomplishing the tasks. A player cannot do this.

Those not included as actions in the game are tantamount to flavor text, which the MC does not have a monopoly on. The MC determines difficulty according to the rules in the same way players decide whether they've bought armor or if they cast Grease on a slope. Everyone is capable of altering the conditions under which a character conducts a test using the things spelled out in the rules.

An evil boss decides to send a minion against your PC [flavour text] You meet the minion in the nightclub [flavour text] You ignore the minion because you can. The GM decides that your refusal to talk with the minion provokes the minion and the minion attacks. [Flavour text] However, your clever PC had expected a fight and brought an armor. (The decision had nothing do to with a hint dropped by a friendly NPC that the evil boss wants you dead) Thanks to the armor the minion’s attack misses. You choose to direct the events of the game with your awesome player powers and you attack the minion. Your attack wounds the minion. It tries to escape [flavour text] through the door [which is there thanks to flavour text]. It runs outside [flavour text]. It is raining [flavour text], which makes the pavement very slippery. [this seems natural but is not direclty based on rules, so flavour text] The minion has high Dex and other bonuses to balance [GM’s earlier decisions based on…flavour text ] The player, on the other hand, has decided to bring the armor which gives penalties to the test. The player, being the master of the situation, totally decides not to pursue the minion.

I'm going to assume that somehow I failed to communicate what I meant instead of assuming that you literally have no fucking clue what you're talking about, because basically everything in that little scenario is something covered by rules or otherwise contestable because that's how games work and have pretty much always worked. The minion wants to stab somebody, they gotta roll and use resources like actions or abilities. They want to open the door, this takes place in game time using those same resources. The road is slick and the character is wearing armor; modifiers to game stats appear in pretty much every game on the market and these are things the PCs will be aware of and able to overcome or use because both they and the MC's creations are abiding by the same rules. If it is not explicitly covered by the rules then there are usually conditional clauses saying something to the effect of "apply a -2 penalty to tests made under this effect." If that isn't in there then the table has a say in what that effect does and how it is applied because everyone at the table agreed to use these rules for this game, and any rulings added in afterward likewise have to be agreed upon by majority for things to happen at all.

And yes, the player deciding not to pursue the minion is steering the game way, way more than anything the minion does after the PCs start hitting it with sticks. The minion is gone, the PCs are doing something else that isn't dealing with this stupid bullshit junkie with a knife, and content imagined by the MC detailing the thrilling chase sequence is now worthless because no one is going to see it. Chests remain locked, books on shelves go unskewed, rooms go unsearched, NPCs are dismissed before they spill the beans. Content unseen because of this might as well and in fact does not exist as far as anyone else at the table is concerned.

The reasons why things exist as they do in the game and indeed most of things themselves are of tangential importance unless the other people at the table decide it's worth investigating. This includes things like doors put in clubs by the MC, rich family members described by another player, or the phone a character has having dangly things on it a la the animes. It also includes motivations behind different actions like the mob boss sending the junkie to the club or the player's paladin hating orcs because reasons. They are textures applied to background objects or notes on a dossier before they're anything else because they might not ever be brought up in the game. I don't need to point how bullshit an argument "the MC's creations will come into play no matter what the PC's do" is in response to this. You are placing way, way too much importance in the content the MC is providing for the game, and assuming a frankly insultingly low opinion of the actions PCs are capable of taking to determine where the game goes. It is my opinion that everyone at the table has equal capability to direct the course of the game and the narrative generated. Ignoring the content generated by one player is as significant as acknowledging it. The MC is a player with more opportunities to have either option happen to their content, but that does not make the content more worth one option over the other. If that frequency is what you are considering unique, fine. It's about the only thing you can consider unique without grossly exaggerating the importance of that content. I don't see that frequency as worth noting much more than necessary to say "don't be a dick and don't use these opportunities to be a dick."

[fectin]

you said what you "heard", i said rather than go by hearsay read the material in the book yourself. yes what you hear from others is easily quite different than the printed text could be, so read it for yourself rather than rely on secondhand information and playing the telephone game.

You're right: Dragon magazine articles, written by Gary, about Gary's preferred playstyle, with examples from Gary's games do not provide complete insight into the void that is Gary. Even so, I have stared plenty long enough already.

Edit: to be fair, I guess it was slightly confusing to say 'heard' instead of 'read'. I'll try to avoid any semblance of colloquialism in the future.

[Kuri Näkk]

I'm going to assume that somehow I failed to communicate what I meant instead of assuming that you literally have no fucking clue what you're talking about

Yes, you have failed to communicate. Either that or you literally have no fucking clue what you're talking about. Well, possibly both.

basically everything in that little scenario is something covered by rules or otherwise contestable because that's how games work and have pretty much always worked.

You fail again. WTF means "otherwise contestable" in your sentence? Does "basically everything" mean "less than 50%" in your dictionary?

Just one example, please? In the scenario the GM decides that it rains. I assume you are familiar with 3xed D&D. Please refer to the relevant rule, which the GM applied and which resulted in raining outside, instead of, say, sunshine. I would also love to know how do players "otherwise contest" the GM’s decision that it rains assuming that the GM has not contradicted himself. Furthermore, please tell me how exactly did player actions result in generating the rainy condition? Let me quote you to keep you focused as regards the last question: "the content generated by the MC is entirely dependent on the actions of the players".

The road is slick and the character is wearing armor; modifiers to game stats appear in pretty much every game on the market and these are things the PCs will be aware of and able to overcome or use because both they and the MC's creations are abiding by the same rules.

*Sigh* Rules cover, more or less, what are the effects of various conditions: slick floor, poor visibility etc. Only a few rules cover how these conditions are generated: typically, this is up to GM. Consequently, the GM can manipulate with the modifiers to a skill check by changing the conditions. Often just like that - without using in game resources, like actions. The player can alter a pitiful few conditions in comparison and it costs in actions. A player may not be able to even adequately prepare for a situation. In the scenario the player was not aware that it is raining outside and he did not, of course, decide to wear an armor to have a better chance at failing the balance test.

Your argument that there is nothing unique about GM's role is obvious bullshit.

And yes, the player deciding not to pursue the minion is steering the game way, way more than anything the minion does after the PCs start hitting it with sticks. The minion is gone, the PCs are doing something else that isn't dealing with this stupid bullshit junkie with a knife, and content imagined by the MC detailing the thrilling chase sequence is now worthless because no one is going to see it.

You are hilarious when you do the player power trip. Do you really think that the player "decided" to let the minion escape in the scenario? What makes you think that the GM bothered to prepare a thrilling chase sequence? The only thing the player accomplished by deciding to give up was avoiding falling prone. You think that the GM could not anticipate the “decision”? Could it be possible that he whole thing was planned "off-screen": the GM wanted the minion to escape, he tricked the player into wearing armor, he gave the minion high bonus to balance checks and made the rain happen. I guess that you are incapable of comprehending this: in your imagination the decisions made by GM "off screen" may as well not exist – only player actions can direct the course of events.

In short, you are wrong: the content generated by the GM is not entirely dependent on the actions of the players. The opposite is nearer to the truth, i.e. that the actions of the players are entirely dependent on content generated by the GM. Both the GM and players steer the game, however, the GM may choose to steer the game way more than any player. Taken to the extreme, the player decision-making has virtually no meaning because the GM prepares railroad type of adventures "off-screen". (I personally hate such railroad games but this is beside the point.)

It is my opinion that everyone at the table has equal capability to direct the course of the game and the narrative generated. Ignoring the content generated by one player is as significant as acknowledging it. The MC is a player with more opportunities to have either option happen to their content, but that does not make the content more worth one option over the other. If that frequency is what you are considering unique, fine. It's about the only thing you can consider unique without grossly exaggerating the importance of that content. I don't see that frequency as worth noting much more than necessary to say "don't be a dick and don't use these opportunities to be a dick."

Sir, you failed the communication check again. What do you exactly mean by "The MC is a player with more opportunities to have either option happen to their content, but that does not make the content more worth one option over the other. " Also, are you really writing that “everyone at the table has equal capability to direct the course of the game” and immediately after “The MC is a player with more opportunities to have either option happen”. Does it not strike you as two contradictory statements? No?

P.S. Your proposed piece of advice is pure genius.

Edit: For Kaelik's pleasure: I quote the full sentence twice now: in the quote box and again in the text betweem "" marks.

[PhoneLobster]

Just as a fun exercise.

Just one example, please? In the scenario the GM decides that it rains. I assume you are familiar with 3xed D&D. Please refer to the relevant rule, which the GM applied and which resulted in raining outside, instead of, say, sunshine.

Does the Random Weather Table get to count or are you one of the 90% of DMs who never read the actual DMG?

I would also love to know how do players "otherwise contest" the GM’s decision that it rains assuming that the GM has not contradicted himself.

Well Control Weather is a core spell. But hey. Why use that when they can say "screw this lets go on our monster picnic tomorrow".

Furthermore, please tell me how exactly did player actions result in generating the rainy condition?

Again... control weather. Or again "Hey what we really should do is attack while it's raining! It rains a bunch here so lets just WAIT."

I mean the rest of this guy's stuff is rambling nonsense anyway. But really, that was nicely directly addressable nonsense. The rest is some sort of attempt to glorify DMs pulling stuff out of their ass with the added pretence that there is never an alternative and you shouldn't try and use such alternatives as much as possible as basic good GMing practice.

[Kuri Näkk]

You do not seem to have any experience in GMing.

From the player perspective off-screen content normally …/

OK, appearances can be deceiving: you do now a lot about GMing. I agree at pretty much everything that you wrote about the signficance of "off-screen" content.

Going back to your "it's a game, not a simulation" statement--if you keep trying to force a plot onto your players, and they keep deliberately trying to avoid it--you need to put the dice down and have a discussion about what you all want.

Related question to all this: When the PCs are in a position to be looking for adventure (as opposed to having it thrust upon them) do you give them multiple options and let them pick what sounds appealing, or roll with it if they suggest something completely different?

I try to find out what the players want: fight, exploration, political intrigue etc by simply asking. I do not advocate forcing a plot on players who deliberately try to avoid it. That would be really annoying. As a player I hate railroading and plots with strict predetermined story lines (your typical dungeon crawl from room A to B to C to D). Players must have meaningful options, which means open structure and no predetermined endings. I prepare extensively: places, NPCs, their motivations (reactions) and challenges but let the players to drive the story as much as possible.

By "this is a game not simulation" I mean that I occasionaly reduce player choice signficantly and that "off screen" content is not always 100% fixed. For instance, the players may need to know a dirty secret to advance a political intrigue type adventure that has been going on for some time. The information is there but the PCs keep looking in wrong places and keep asking the wrong questions. These are wrong because the “off-screen” preparation has determined the "right" ways the players could get the information. The players are getting frustrated for making no progress. In such case, I may decide that the players will get the information no matter what. If they go to a nightclub a drunken patron will tell it, if they decide to break in somewhere, they will discover the information in the safe etc

[Kaelik]

What do you exactly mean by "that does not make the content more worth "?

Ignoring for the moment the other tremendously stupid things you said, you do realize that sentences end at periods, not at random parts before the period where you cut off words.

Or, to put it another way, What do you exactly mean by "the content generated by the GM is not"?

[Kuri Näkk]

Does the Random Weather Table get to count or are you one of the 90% of DMs who never read the actual DMG?

Are you one of the 0,1% of GMs who actually ever uses the table? Or one of the 0,0001% who think that the GM must use the table?

I would also love to know how do players "otherwise contest" the GM’s decision that it rains assuming that the GM has not contradicted himself.

Well Control Weather is a core spell. But hey. Why use that when they can say "screw this lets go on our monster picnic tomorrow".

Last time I checked the dictionary "to contest" meant "to dispute", "to call in question". By using the spell a player is not disputing the GM's decision but acts on the information and changes the weather.

Furthermore, please tell me how exactly did player actions result in generating the rainy condition?

Again... control weather. Or again "Hey what we really should do is attack while it's raining! It rains a bunch here so lets just WAIT."

You miss the point entirely.

I mean the rest of this guy's stuff is rambling nonsense anyway. But really, that was nicely directly addressable nonsense. The rest is some sort of attempt to glorify DMs pulling stuff out of their ass with the added pretence that there is never an alternative and you shouldn't try and use such alternatives as much as possible as basic good GMing practice.

Phonelobster at work again, trying to stick things that never happened. Pull your head out of your ass.

[PhoneLobster]

Are you one of the 0,1% of GMs who actually ever uses the table? Or one of the 0,0001% who think that the GM must use the table?

No need to get so defensive, just be honest, you didn't know that table existed at all and when you asked for "just one example of a rule that generates a rainy day!" you actually didn't think it existed.

And, I totally would use the random weather table, and generate the implied custom region specific tables based off it, IF players indicated weather was suddenly very important to them especially by means of disputing the weather as it is presented to them.

Because that's what the fucking rules are FOR, dealing with exactly that sort of dispute, if the GM goes "I fairy tea party weather!" and the players say "fuck that we'd rather not" then you damn well BETTER pull out a rule the players can interact with fairly and predictably.

Last time I checked the dictionary... [It allowed me to make utterly bullshit semantics arguments!]

Fuck RIGHT off there.

DM: I decide it's raining when you go to attack the monsters! [by pulling it out of my ass or rolling on a table!]
Players: We dispute that and decide that it isn't raining when we go attack the monsters. [by WAITING until it fucking isn't raining]

That is definitively a dispute over the nature of how events will transpire.

No one gives a shit about it raining or not during NOT the time they go fight the monsters. The entire dispute, the entire negotiation, the entire fucking interaction you refuse to admit even exists is about the actual outcome of "what is the weather like for the fight?".

Phonelobster at work again, trying to stick things that never happened.

Try rewording your claim of awesome GM specialness and how only the GM gets to ass pull stuff into the game and it cannot be "disputed" (where "disputed" now no longer includes "changed by any means") by the players.

Reword your argument in a way that my description DOESN'T easily apply to and you can try accusing me of misrepresenting you. But you really don't have a leg to stand on here.

[shadzar]

@KN, PL et all:

if the DM says it is raining, the players don't ge tto say no it is a clear sunny day, anymore than the player gets to say his character has freckles, and the DM gets to say NO you must have perfect complexion.

only, ONLY, if freckles are something that has great context within the story can the DM deny them to a player, or if the player wants them on his ass, jsut so he can always moon people he disagrees with while saying "kiss my freckled-ass". you get the idea.

the DM runs the world and be it dice or his decision the world is his character and needs to be able to run it to say what it is doing, just like the players have PCs and THEY get to decide what they wish for them to do.

in the case the players want to go affter X in Townburg rather than hang around in Waterdeep, and the DM says "No you can't do that"...the PCs leave for Townburg and either find a DM that will run the game in Townburg, or jsut start a new game. maybe they got bored with Waterdeep (it is easy to get bored in Waterdeep or tired of it).

the DM was wrong to present Townburg info to the players if he wasnt ready to run it. this is also a problem when backstory collides with the world of today like DDN might end up having. at least why DMs should be able to have control over backstory to prevent the collision and game termination.

so the DM plays his character, the players play theirs, and unless some spell/some form of magic that allows control of the others character, then never the twain shall meet.

Edit: to be fair, I guess it was slightly confusing to say 'heard' instead of 'read'. I'll try to avoid any semblance of colloquialism in the future.

that would help. many people do say HEARD because they haven't even read the books themselves and only base things on hearsay. i don't think ANYONE n here keeps track of who has what editions books so i don't know if you have them or read them or what, and can only take the words you say at face value. also i know of no one that uses "heard" to mean read it and such.

have you tried reading the 1st DMG at face value rather than throw in things form Dragon and other sources though? the advice in it is solid for the game in most places.

[shadzar]

Related question to all this: When the PCs are in a position to be looking for adventure (as opposed to having it thrust upon them) do you give them multiple options and let them pick what sounds appealing, or roll with it if they suggest something completely different?

how did i miss this since it is a good question when i read almost all the posts from people i have on ignore in good threads?

depends on what they want to do. starting out they can take one of two paths and that is it. that is all the branches i have available for an overall game. while the world is a living one and some scenarios can be time sensitive, there are places that are breaks that can pause the beginning of the time sensitive thing. Spelljamming only happens at the beginning of a game if it is to get kender to Toril or something, and plane-hopping never happens in games i run as i don't care for trying to run a universe, jsut the pocket enough around one world. if the grab onto a hook i have given them then i can put it in one of those break points where a time sensitive thing is not begun yet. if they want to create their own hook...then why am i even there? creating your own hook as a player is 2 strikes out of 3 already putting the game on thin ice with me no matter what side of the screen i am on. if i wanted to play in my own imagination i dont need the other people for that, and if i want to hear a story by the protagonist i will read or watch a biography movie. half the players i know couldnt make a good story to begin with so no matter which side of the screen i am on, i care nothing for the nonsense they wish to come up with and want no part of it.

-major hooks
-minor hooks

if i give a hook that i cant provide for i screwed up as a DM. if they want to create their own hook, then they are as foolish as the fish jumping into your rowboat to be cooked for dinner tonight. i don't like to suffer fools much, save for when i come to this forum.