The following comes from the classic “Keep on the Borderlands” module, by Gary Gygax. It’s a very accurate description of Dm’ing, and one worth reading every so often.
How To Be An Effective Dungeon Master
As Dungeon Master, the beginner is faced with a difficult problem. The DM is the most important person in the D&D
game. He or she sets up and controls all situations, makes decisions, and acts as the link between the players and the
world he or she has created. Perhaps the most common question asked by a beginning Dungeon Master is, “What
do I do to run a game?” It is possible to read through the rules and become slightly lost by all the things that must be
prepared or known before DMing a game.Unlike most boardgames, D&D play relies on information, both from the players and the DM. In boardgames, the way
the game is played is obvious. First one person moves, and then another. Actions are limited and choices are few. In
this game, the action is only limited by the abilities of the character, the imagination of the player, and the decisions
of the DM. The play will often go in unexpected directions and the DM will sometimes be required to decide on situations
not covered in the rules. The DM is the judge.As a judge, moderator, or referee, the DM must constantly deal with the players. Just as the referee of a sporting event,
the DM must be fair. He or she cannot be “out to get the players”, nor should he or she be on their side all the time.
The DM must be neutral. If a party has played well and succeeded, the DM should not punish them by sending
more and more monsters at them or thwart their plans; on the other hand, if the players have acted foolishly, they
should get their “just rewards”. In combat, the DM should play the monsters to the best of the monster’s ability. If the
creature is stupid, it may be easily tricked or may not always do the smartest thing. If the monster is clever or intelligent,
it will fight to its best advantage. The DM must be fair, but the players must play wisely.
The DM is also the designer of the situations and must bear in mind the abilities of his or her players. It is the job of the
DM to see that the situations and characters balance. If things are too difficult, the players will become discouraged;
too easy and they will become bored. Is it possible for a good player to win, yet still be a challenge and a risk in doing so? Is the amount of treasure gained equal to the danger of trying to get it? As DM, much satisfaction comes from watching players overcome a difficult situation. But they should do it on their own!To defeat monsters and overcome problems, the DM must be a dispenser of information. Again, he or she must be fair
– telling the party what it can see, but not what it cannot. Questions will be asked by players, either of the DM or of
some character the party has encountered, and the DM must decide what to say. Information should never be
given away that the characters have not found out – secret doors may be missed, treasure or magic items overlooked,
or the wrong question asked of a townsperson. The players must be allowed to make their own choices. Therefore,
it is important that the DM give accurate information, but the choice of action is the players’ decision.
Throughout all this – making decisions, playing roles, handling monsters – the DM must remember that he or she
is in control. The DM is the judge, and it is his or her game.The DM should listen to the players and weigh their arguments fairly when disagreements arise, but the final decision
belongs to the DM.The Dungeon Master’s word is law!
Totte Alm
March 30, 2010
Well written and important to remember, and the most important line, “The Dungeon Master’s word is law!”.
I have many times in thr past ended up in situations where players goes on and on with “But my interpretation of the rules is… ”
Accept it, DMs judgement stand, but, we’ve always had “the player union” and “the monster union”, which acts to keep the balance. If DM accidently nerfs a monster, “the monster union” steps in and kindly corrects it.
Colmarr
March 30, 2010
Reading this, I couldn’t help but feel there was a reason that Gary’s edition is no longer the one in vogue.
Mechanics is no doubt part of it, but all too often I’ve seen DMs adopt the hard-arse “My word is law” approach. It’s a mistake.
The Recursion King
March 30, 2010
It’s only a mistake if you cannot accept, that as a player, the DM has final say… in which case you should not be playing the game at all as a player and instead become a DM of your own game. You see, it’s not the DM’s job to compromise with players, it’s his job to keep them in line, playing by the rules and not cheating. It’s a game of shared story telling where there is an implicit bond of trust between the players and the DM. Like most relationships, if that bond is trust is broken, it ceases to work.
justaguy
March 30, 2010
Well, while I do believe that the GM has final say there is a difference between being a benevolent dictator and a totalitarian bastard. If you get exposed to the later often enough you tend to start to fear the first as well.
Rich
March 30, 2010
I used to adhere to this line of thinking when I was gaming hard core in college and right after graduation. I no longer have the leisure time nor the patience to accept the burden of this style of play.
Fortunately there are lots of other ways to play and other role-playing games that don’t require this level of DM authority (or heck, don’t require a DM at all!).
It isn’t bad, wrong fun. It just isn’t my fun anymore.
Nevertheless, an entertaining read.
newbiedm
March 30, 2010
I expected these types of responses. It seems there’s been a change in even how the game is presented in its current edition, as compared to the earlier Gygax styff. Some of it I think is due though, to the the fact that there is now (3.0+) even a rule for how to zip your pants up, where in earlier eds. as lot of things were left up to the dm’s judgement call. But yes, it is an entertaining read, and still relevant in most parts.
deadorcs
March 30, 2010
I believe it’s a minor action to “zip up your pants”, correct?
Stuart
March 30, 2010
I remember reading that Gary Gygax was brought in to take a look at D&D 3.0 before they launched it. He wasn’t impressed.
Calvino
March 30, 2010
I just read B2 the other day after finding it in a stack of books I never knew I had (1980 Basic, 1980 Expert, 1983 DM Guide, B2, and X1!).
I think people are totally missing the point, though, with this “DM’s word is law” thing. Look at the context! Look at the rest of the section! Gygax clearly shows that DMs have to be neutral, fun, fair, open to player communication, eager to change modes, quick to fix things. He isn’t saying “You’ve entered my dungeon: Abandon hope all ye who enter here” at all. He is saying that, in the end, the DM settles disputes because it is his/her job to keep the action/drama heading in the right direction for the scenario/campaign. He/She knows best because he/she knows the future.
Players don’t have to accept subjugation, browbeating, or unfair treatment; they have to accept the different roles of PCs and DMs. It really only sounds harsh if you want it to. I remember reading that section last week and being really excited by how open and “Just do whatever” it was (very unlike the later D&D that I had played).
Dan
March 30, 2010
I still buy into this, to a point. Somebody (even in the GM-less systems) needs to have the authority to make a rules call, to keep the game moving (nothing brings a session down more than a rules debate).
I suppose, there might be a risk of a conflict of interest between the GM’s role of playing the antagonist, and being the impartial judge/facilitator, but I find that my own bias tends to be towards what makes a better story.
I think the assumption that Gary’s making (and I’m not sure this applies today), is that the DM and the person with the best mastery of the rules are one and the same. Usually, during a game, when that sort of thing comes up, I take a note of it, defer to the rules lawyer/the most interesting outcome and move on, rules debates and study are for when we aren’t having fun playing games.
I think any player (using the broad “People playing the game, including the GM) that’s willing to allow a session to grind to the halt is missing the point.
Dylan McIntosh
March 30, 2010
Great discussions. As a newer player and an even newer dm, this kind of discussion intrigues me.
I though that there were not any winners or losers playing D&D or any rpg, just the adventure itself. If you take a stand too hard on one side or the other, then there is a wrong or right which leads to a loser or winner.
I guess it is similar to the edition wars as well – My belief is play how and what you like, if not move on.
DiceGolem
March 30, 2010
Players will not play under a totalitarian DM for long, regardless. Each time you show up to a session, of any game, you’re accepting that you’re having fun and want to continue.
Stuart
March 30, 2010
I though that there were not any winners or losers playing D&D or any rpg, just the adventure itself.
Some people play that way, others don’t. If you’re play a competitive style game (which some people definitely do when they play D&D) then you need things to be well balanced and “fair”.
Other people don’t care much for that, and since the DM can always “win” if they set their mind to it, they don’t bother much with balance, optimization, etc.
It really is a matter of taste and having a lot of essentially different games, or at least approaches to games, under the same title. 🙂
Totte Alm
March 30, 2010
I t5hink some of you thought I play as a dictator DM, on the contrary, I play open-minded, but I’ll give you an example of somethibg where DMs judgement should rule, regardless what a player thinks.
Picture this:
The party have ventured into a subterranean cave, where there are a huge mirror, though which evil creatures from the abyss keeps coming, and the PCs, according to the adventure/DMs ideas has to travel to the other side and perform some magic there using a magic device to shut this portal down.
Then this player come sup with the idea “I smash the mirror”, he rolls a 20, and as a 20 is always success, he claims he smashed the utterly pwerful magic portal mirror.
Now, DM says: “No, despite your perfect blow, the mirror did withstand your attempt to destroy it.”
Obeying DM is saying: -“OK, nice try, now let’s go through it”.
Disobeying is spending the next two-three hours trying to prove that this magic mirror really should break when he rolled a 20.
Lyndsay
March 30, 2010
We have a DM who INSISTS on trying to win. Every single encounter, he wants to win. Every single campaign is over in the first or second session. I have died in the first encounter. Coup de grace. On an unconscious PC. He fudges rolls higher to increase hits and damage from monsters on first and second level PCs.
And when the campaigns fail because he plays against the PCs rather than guiding the game, we are always the bad guys for saying “hey, no fair, that’s not the way this game should go”
Every time he wants to run a campaign he puts tons of work into planning and creation.. but the execution always kills someone immediately. I don’t get it.
Stuart
March 30, 2010
I have died in the first encounter. Coup de grace. On an unconscious PC.
This is why I (personally) think it makes no sense to play head-to-head DnD, or for that matter to fuss around with “optimization”. If the DM wants to kill your character… they will. Even without cheating/fudging all it takes is monsters that make coup de grace vs unconcious PCs their #1 objective, even if it means taking great risks and frequent self sacrifice.
Lyndsay
March 30, 2010
Oh man I didn’t explain myself – but basically, Gygax had it right here, that’s DMing in a nutshell. You are not the monsters, you are the story… the monsters are just a part of it. And like any good story, the rules are just a part of it as well. This is a great intro to what DMing a game is.
Dan
March 30, 2010
@Lyndsay – I agree with you there. Sometimes I push the players hard, because I see the GM’s role is to drive the story. Unfortunately, some of the most compelling fiction comes from the protagonist getting beat up. In my opinion, dying is the one of the least interesting things that can happen to a character, but thinking that they’re going up against a hopeless challenge is a where heroes are made.
I know some people like to play differently, and I’m not about to crap on someone’s fun, but I don’t think these two play styles are compatible. Or, everyone should know going into the game, if they DM’s trying to challenge the players, or beat them.
Colmarr
March 30, 2010
I posted a sort-of-reply to this post over on my own blog. I was hoping to leave a trackback here but I can’t figure out how to do it 😦
http://astralsea.blogspot.com/2010/03/is-decision-making-dms-right.html
Lyndsay
March 30, 2010
@Dan that’s exactly it – he’s out to beat the players. He doesn’t want to engage in the shared storytelling that makes a D&D adventure such a fun thing to do.
raevhen
March 30, 2010
Doesn’t his neutral stance conflict with Chatty’s “Rule of Cool”?
I am the final arbiter at my table, but I also realize I am there to provide a fun experience for my players. I had a player make a character for my game and after 5 levels realized he did not playing a paladin and wanted to re-image the character as a Fighter. A Neutral DM would follow RAW, instead I said “Yes” and let him re-image the character.
While I agree with the spirit of neutrality, I think we need to also realize that we are all at the table to have fun, and fun needs rules and structure, or it becomes unfair and unfun. So don’t be a hard ass, nor a push-over, and make it cool.
Dan Burnett
March 31, 2010
On the contrary, I think that dying is one of the most exciting parts of a characters tale. In my old Seventh Sea game, I feel, (due partly to the unbalanced rules) I couldn’t throw a combat encounter at these guys that would make them blink their eye. It was so cinematic. 4E has a super balanced element to it. I can now design encounters where if my players DONT play wisely and strategically, they CAN die. and WILL. We never had that in ALL the sessions of 7th sea that we played. It was sort of just like story telling at that point. Which is not a BAD thing, but it took that ‘game’ element out of it. Failure is FUN. Failure is learning. The challenge is what makes it amazing. and besides, with the plethora of races and classes in 4e, is dying really THAT bad anyway? It’s f’ing epic, is what it is.
Dan
March 31, 2010
But it’s gotta be a good death. (and by death, I’m meaning a permanent character death, not a resurrection). I think it should be a choice on the player’s part. That sacrifice should be a god story. These are heroes, not to be taken down by a swarm of rats. It should matter.
DiceGolem
March 31, 2010
Unless you were killed by a Huge-sized swarm of animated rat corpses. Now THAT would be epic!
@Don Burnett: You have the right zeal, but I don’t agree with you fully. Failure is never fun. Rogues never like it when they roll low enough on a Stealth check that the monsters notice them. If those same monsters kill them, it sucks even worse. Sure, you’re following the rules and playing the monsters as they were intended, but the whole party was supposed to be there. “Too bad” isn’t an acceptable answer.
However, there is a ton of real fun to be had when you overcome a challenge. Sure, the dice conspired against that Rogue in this encounter; possible failure is part of the challenge. But couldn’t that monster hold the Rogue captive instead? Imagine the tense skill challenge as the rest of the party tries to negotiate for his release! Imagine the players talking amongst themselves, weeks later: “You’re scouting ahead, again? Do you have enough rope with you, just in case the Kobolds don’t want to use any of theirs?” “Nah, I’m bringing manacles this time. ^_^”
Dan
March 31, 2010
An undead huge rat swarm would be epic. Failure can be awesome. Failing my stealth check, and having to fight or talk my way out of trouble makes good story. It’s a hero meeting his end in an uninteresting way.
Imagine Ben Kenobi getting picked off
by some stormtrooper before the fight with Vader.
Stuart
March 31, 2010
How do you decide when it’s appropriate for a player to die then? Minions can’t kill PCs? PCs only die when the DM thinks it’s appropriate? Or only when the player thinks it’s appropriate? PCs only die when the player turns off the fail-safe system and takes a greater risk (eg. I keep fighting at negative hit points!)
If it’s just at the DMs whim when characters live or die I think you lose a lot from the game.
Dan
March 31, 2010
I think there should always be an ‘out’ for the player. It’s death as the default consequence that I take issue with. In D&D, things are a little different, due to resurrection spells, so it’s easier to kill someone. However, when that last player drops, I’d rather the survivors come to in some interesting situation than go ‘whelp, that was fun’
How many novels end with the protagonists all dying and the antagonists getting what they want?
Dan Burnett
March 31, 2010
I really don’t think there should be an ‘out’. It’s death. Take that away from the game, and people start to question DM motives. If you play the monsters how they’re supposed to be played, then it’s an even playing field. Saying this, you can assume most monsters are happy with a foe dropping unconscious. But if these are enemies that want the players DEAD- either for revenge or being instructed to kill and make sure to kill- then it is not absurd, mean or villainous on the dm’s part to ensure that the monsters follow through on those actions- yes, even minions. Granted, this style is certainly not for everyone. But my games are light-hearted and fun as is, if I took away the element of certain death, it would be TOO light hearted. Character Death, Difficult Challenges and Uncertainty are the reason I’m switching to 4e. It’s more rewarding.
Get pinterest followers
March 6, 2013
can i use your article on my website, if you allow%3
fu
January 19, 2014
>The dungeonmaster’s word is law!
0/10 dropped.