So... this has been brewing for a while. I'm going to try to keep it short. But it's not gonna be short, so buckle up.
If you know me, you know Dungeons & Dragons is my favorite game of all time; if not, you will be 1% more aware of me as a person by the end of this sentence. And, for almost as long as I've been knowledgeable of D&D, I've been DMing. (Quick aside: if D&D jargon eludes you, I suggest you bail now.) I was DMing, albeit poorly, within the first year of learning about D&D. The idea of telling crazy medieval fantasy stories and having other people experience them was incredibly appealing then, and now, some 15+ years in the future, I have to say it's paid off with some of the best times of my life.
There is often some measure of discussion about tips and tricks for DMs, novice and veteran alike, with some effort made to boil it all down to the finest point. What is the best advice one can give to another DM? A quick search of the entire internet will find you a fair few articles, but if you're reading this, you probably didn't use Google, did you? My advice would differ somewhat from such examples as "Rule 0: the DM's word is law" and "Always say yes". I have heard both of these tidbits and I cannot agree with either.
The relationship between DM and player is a social contract, with both parties having expectations of the other. In all cases, if these expectations are not met, the relationship breaks down. An approach of "The DM's word is law" can hurt the relationship badly if the DM expects that any Deus Ex he executes will be met with a smile and nod, and a DM who is wrong needs to be ready to admit it. Likewise, if the DM always says yes to any players' proposed course of action, this can lead to a feeling of unlimited options. While some players may enjoy this sort of sandbox gameplay, a sandbox with no walls is merely a desert. Rules give structure to open-ended games, and it is my personal philosophy that giving players restrictions actually helps brew creativity, as working within confines requires more consideration than simply grasping at the first idea, however inane, that comes about.
But I digress. As stated, the player-DM relationship is a social contract. The DM expects that the players will work within the boundaries of the game. The players expect that the DM will have their characters' best interests at heart, and I would certainly say that a DM should have their player's best interests at heart. A game in which the DM runs roughshod over the players and actively attempts to kill or arbitrary inhibit them is not fun for the players. Likewise, a game in which a player insists his demands are met or consistently argues with the DM is not fun for the DM. In both of these cases, either party does not trust the other to ensure an enjoyable time is being had by all. This leads me to my golden rule.
Trust your players, and have your players trust you.
A game in which both parties trust one another is a game in which everyone can enjoy themselves, even during the Bad Stuff. Bad stuff happens to PCs. It's a fact. But if the players trust the DM, the bad stuff is enjoyable. It's suspenseful. It's interesting. As a quick example, imagine your character is walking down a hallway when the DM informs you that "the ground swells up around you, trapping you in a dark, stony tomb. No saving throw. There is no escape." If you trust your DM, this is an interesting development. What happens next? What can your character do to escape? Something bad has happened, but you're less concerned about the bad stuff and more concerned about the progression of the story. On the other hand, if you do not trust your DM, your first thoughts are likely in regards to the unfairness of the situation. Why didn't you get a saving throw? Why was there no warning? Hopefully, this illustration helps you understand the possible consequences from both perspectives; the less trust the players have in their DM, the more likely this conflict is to arise.
Of course, this goes both ways. DMs should trust that their players are acting in good faith. A player who has a higher-than-expected attack bonus, for example, should be questioned gently. Where are these bonuses coming from? In my experience, most players do not cheat at Dungeons & Dragons; rather, they simply made an honest mistake. Too much gold, XP, or modifiers are common mistakes. Some players may act with authoritative knowledge, but are simply badly misinformed. It is better to take a forgiving tone than an accusatory one.
With all of that said, it should be noted that this rule is not always an easy one to follow. Trust, you are aware, must be earned. Trusting your players is comparably easy. Be willing to give them the benefit of the doubt. That said, do not act naively. Cheaters, though rare, exist. Regardless, earning trust is much more difficult. Players like their characters and will defend them if they think you are being unfair. However, you can demonstrate fairness by being even-handed. In my experience, this is best done by acting gingerly at first. Treat your players well, make their PCs important, and don't put them in overly compromising positions. The goal is to make the players understand that you do have their best interest at heart, even as you slowly introduce greater adversity. There is a fine line here, between challenging the players and punishing them. Consistently overwhelming them with difficulties will damage trust-building, but the right level of difficulty will make them engaged and invested. Once everyone does trust one another, you can then start pulling out unexpected twists, and the outrageous will be accepted, so long as you maintain your PCs' best interests at heart. So go ahead and eat them with a hallway, I'm sure they'd love that.
No comments:
Post a Comment