Part 2a: The DM's Mental Toolbox
Part 1: Introduction to Session Management
Part 1: Introduction to Session Management
As the dungeon master is positioned as having ultimate authority within the game, our role goes beyond simply presenting the setting and limiting the player's behaviour. From the moment that play begins, we are responsible for maintaining order, enforcing the rules and ensuring that the players both cooperate and act fairly with the rules' expectations, both with respect to us and with each other. Our judgment in these matters shape the flow and outcome of the game, as we decide whether a player has acted wrongly or falsely, whether a die roll counts, whether a chosen action is legitimate, or the consequences of that action. When making a ruling of this kind, that judgment is final.
At the same time, despite our broad authority, we must perceive that DMs must act strictly within the bounds of the agreed-upon rules. We cannot invent rules without discussion, or make decisions that contradict the written rules. Our authority is interpretive and situational, NOT legislative. For example, if a rolled die clearly indicates a hit, we cannot redefine the target's armour class or increase the number of hit points the target has, even in unusual circumstances. We should, if more enemy suddenly enters a room, have a justifiable reason for why the did not arrive earlier, as well as a defensible explanation for where they came from within the structure of the setting we're presenting. We cannot, and should not, simply invent them out of the air, despite that being in our power.
Additionally, while our calls are final, the rules prohibit us from arbitrarily applying penalties or making decisions based on emotion or bias. If player A performs an action that saves the kingdom, we should not reward the crown to player B, simply because we prefer player B. Further, if we eject a player from a game, it must be based on misconduct or a violation of conduct codes — failure to appear, open disrespect for the rules, an excessive display of emotional dissatisfaction. Lastly, we should not influence gameplay to produce the results we want, regardless of the reason; we are here to be neutral, not to enforce an outcome that we might desire, merely because we desire it. Our expectations must end at the setting's edge — and should not apply to the player's success outside those game processes that produce success.
From here, we're duty bound to consider a number of custodian-like duties that must be upheld prior to our actually running the game, fixing in our head what makes a game judgment "correct" for ourselves. This requires our interpretation of the game we want to run, and what we want to achieve in our part of running it. Let's address a number of these points one at a time, with the understanding that this list is not and cannot be exhaustive, given the nature of role-playing.
1. The DM must require strict observance of all game rules, by the DM also, governing the manner in which the players communicate and accept the consequences of their actions. This includes limitations upon what "coaching" the DM is allowed to provide, including the freedom to express unsolicited advice, and what consequences ought to befall the DM who fails to uphold the rules or these expectations.
This means observing the rules by submitting to them in the same way the players are expected to. We thus apply them consistently, without alteration or omission — within the best of our ability, there being so many rules — and accept the consequences of those rules where it comes to how non-player monsters, persons or game entities are affected. If the players "luck out" and kill our favourite monster, we accept that as a matter of course and do not invent reasons why it hasn't happened. If a rule is vague, and we are required to interpret the rule, then we make a note of that interpretation and that interpretation becomes a precedent for future incidents.
If no rules exist, we review the game setting itself: can a judgment be rendered on physical limitations deriving from natural laws, or the premise established by already existing magic, or the likelihood of a given event taking place? If not, then instead of imposing an arbitrary ruling, we should allow arguments for or against to be presented by the players, then attempt to rule in their favour if we can — later returning to the issue by establishing a rule of some kind for it, then directly informing the players that while it worked that one time, now the rules clearly state it won't again, and therefore they should not rely upon it. Slowly, steadily, this approach suspends rulings intended to defacto block player actions, while imposing a new structure for later on that allows the players to make informed decisions. In this manner, we use rulings in a measured, fair and pragmatic fashion, not as a tool for our maintain our DM's power, but as a guide to growing the world's internal logic over time.
In giving counsel to a player in-game, we are justifiable if that counsel is to make the player aware of a rule or a long-established option the player may not be aware of. For example, if a rule states that it's possible to run forward at an enemy, draw an axe and throw it all as one movement, then the player is entitled to know this as an option. If the distance to be leaped is 9 feet, and the player has automatically discounted that as an option because they believe they cannot jump 9 feet, then this applies as something their character can do, and therefore something the player has a right to know about their character. We're not saying to the player, "Jump the distance," we're only saying, "You can jump the distance." Anything the DM believes the player's character would know ought to be conveyed to the player, as a matter of indicating what the rules say about the character's knowledge and state of mind, thereby allowing the DM to inform the player thereto.
The DM should not tell which door should be opened, nor give information that the characters could not possibly know, nor give advice in the form of, "You'd be smart to do this," or any such judgmentally framed manner of speaking about a player's choice of action. The game's integrity hinges on the idea that player choices are meaningful because they arise from the players themselves — not from cues, nudges or value-laden suggestions from the person running the world... and absolutely not granted to one player more often than any other. The DM should not play favourites in who gets to know and who doesn't.
Prior to game play, we must review these precepts in our mind — and, where we perceive ourselves that something isn't wholly clear in our mind, we should sit and make specific rules regarding those things, which can then be explained to the players before such cases ever emerge. Suppose we have a situation where a player chooses that his character is going to set the tavern on fire, without cause, or again without cause, kill an NPC that the player perceives exists solely to give the party exposition about the setting. Is it acceptable for the player to perform either action, given that a certain meta-gaming is imposed here on the character's mental state. Players are sometimes ready to say, "This is something my character would do," as a justification for something which, in fact, the player is prepared to do regardless of the character's knowledge, training, awareness of social norms or expectation of consequences that would certainly arise from committing such an act. Players are easily allowed to "live with" what a character might do, but is it relevant whether or not characters, being people, would be able to "live with themselves?" Is it even relevant to consider this? A DM should decide, beforehand, what the policy is, because this is bound to come up.
It is perfectly acceptable to impose a rule that violent disruptive action without cause is not permitted, so long as this rule is applied to everyone, including the DM, and "cause" is rigidly defined. Because this is a game, and games have boundaries, this is completely legitimate rule in any form of game. Two game pieces sharing the same square, say in Monopoly, cannot "steal one another's money" simply because of this proximal coincidence. The purpose of D&D can be defined as the players vs. threats in the game world; anything that isn't a threat, therefore, is out of bounds. It is as simple as that. Players not ready to play by this rule need not apply.
2. The player's character sheets must be kept accurately, in a fashion that is readable, accounting for every possible game element including, but not limited to, hit points, experience, wealth, equipment and details relating to the character directly, such as height, weight, present armour class, present level, present lists of abilities and spells, etcetera. These sheets are subject to inspection by the DM at any time.
Characters sheets are not private. Players may record private notes outside their character sheets, but any element that applies to the game must count as a part of the knowledge that the dungeon master, as well as the player, is privy to. Moreover, because other characters live in the company of the player's character, any overtly evident equipment should be included in the knowledge of those other characters; for example, how many weapons a character has, how many belts he or she wears, how tall the character is, how much he eats, or what other large items that are carried or stored upon a cart or an animal. If the character owns a house, then unless very careful effort is taken in-game, then it stands to reason the other characters would know about it, having probably seen it from the outside for certain.
Because character sheets serve a game function, players must reliably maintain them, and be prepared to offer explanations for how certain items came to be included on their sheets, or how it was that they used a piece of equipment in the past that does not now appear on their sheet. If the character's experience points are grossly out of line with others in the party, or if they have far more wealth, it is upon the player to allay the suspicions this arouses, and NOT our responsibility as DM to be forgiving or to overlook such discrepancies. As custodians of the game and the governing body dictating how the game is played, we have a right to ask how a player came to have such and such an amount of something, and to receive satisfactory answers. If we do not, we are licensed by our position to make revisions or restore the balance of the character to match the circumstances of other characters around the table.
Players overly concerned with this should take steps to account, with language, every substantial gain they make, so that they can then present their case in full to the DM, if need be. Otherwise, they should accept that it's more than likely they've committed a perfectly acceptable mathematical error, adding an extra zero where they shouldn't have, or misunderstanding a number when it was given. Thus no punitive consequences should be imposed upon a player who has kept an inexplicable character sheet. It need only be aligned with the sheets of other persons, as necessary.
3. An understanding must be conveyed to the participants how dice fit into the game's structure, which dice may be used, and what may be done with dice while in play. Restrictions on the random tossing of dice, which creates ambient, distracting noise, can be curtailed fairly. How the dice are thrown must be addressed, as well as what counts as a "throw" and what counts as a "land."
Any die which, due to its origin, shape, apparent materials or possessing large holes, gouges, misshaping and such, may be fairly suspended from use in the game, regardless of the player's attachment to that die. Many dice made by computer 3D generation can often be counted as insufficiently weighted or balanced, and therefore not "official" in the eyes of the governing body. Certain dice whose colour makes it difficult to read from across the table, so that the result must be taken on the player's word rather than by direct observation, may similarly be discounted. Such items may be wonderful bits of fetish-kitsch, but they're not sufficient for proper game play. All sports and game governing bodies have such rules.
Likewise, it is within the dungeon master's privilege to decide if computer generated dice systems are acceptable for use in game play, and under which conditions. For example, it may be possible to use an electronic die roll to determine who gets the cherished magical treasure that's been given, but not where an attack roll is needed. Such stipulations can be outlined and defined as acceptable in some circumstances and not in others. Of course, where a roll against other players is to take place, those other players must unanimously accept the digital tool according to their judgment, regardless of the DM's position. Fairness is not only vertical (DM-to-player), it must be lateral as well (player-to-player).
As it is possible to practice throwing even 20-sided dice in just such a manner, letting them roll off the fingers with minimal contact with the table, that the result can be controlled. It's therefore within the governance of die use to stipulate that a die must be dropped from a certain height, or thrown a certain distance, or that a tray be used, or that a cup or die-tower be used, to ensure a correctly random result. We can further decide if a die must land on a flat surface, so that even if the tilt of the die is minimal, and the result apparently evident, the fact that there is a tilt can be dictated as a need to re-roll the die. In addition, it can be stipulated that only die rolls that land on a table, or within a defined area of the table, be counted. Such regulations, again, reflect those of sports where what is counted as "out-of-bounds" applies, or where a pitcher's foot must be placed upon throwing the ball, or what counts as "touching a piece," or any number of other like restrictions found throughout the gaming world.
4. We should decide if players who do not attend should be assigned a consequence, and have an explanation for what their characters are doing when those players are not present, within the bounds of believability; while also stipulating that within a game, the bounds of believability can be stretched quite a lot.
For example, if a player is not in attendance, we may impose a fine of food eaten or coins lost, due to the character's choice to go on a bender away from the party, if the party were located at the start of the running at the time the player did not attend. The character can then "catch up" to the party afterwards, should they attend the next session. Likewise, the non-attending player's character might simply "hang back" at the rear of a group in a dungeon, fearful of engaging, stepping out for the combat to pass water, or even that they took part and somehow failed to hit every attempt to do so, while being missed consistently by the enemy (no die rolls necessary). In the case of a battle under these conditions, however, it should be noted that if the entire party is killed, then the non-attending player's character should also die; after all, the player not in attendance is, in truth, trusting the party to protect their character. If the party is unable to do so, then the logical consequence should result.
We may decide whether or not a "custodian" of the character can be assigned by the player in advance, providing that the player provide a copy of the character sheet, at least sufficiently that those details applying to the game can be known. It's suggested that during this time, the player's character be considered a "temporary henchfolk," and thus receive half the experience and share of treasure, in compensation for the player not appearing. It's assumed the departed player will choose a fellow player who is trustworthy, and concerned about keeping the departed player's character alive, but if this arrangement is allowed, the DM is under no obligation to treat the assigned character as special with regards to game consequences or probable survival.
If the player quits, or is absent so often that we decide the game is better off without them, commensurate with the agreement of the party, then the continued existence of this henchfolk is subject to the DM's judgment. The character, now an NPC, could remain as is; or the character could be demoted further to that of "follower," with a quarter share in experience in treasure rather than half. Or the character might be said to have "decided to seek adventure elsewhere," whereupon they cease to be part of the campaign. The DM may freely take over the character as an NPC as well.
5. We are responsible as the DM for providing sufficient clarity in outlining the game world, with our words, our body language and with visual aids, sufficient for the players to be able to determine where they are, what consequences they face, what's happening and a clear idea of what a practical response would be.
This is a vast and considerable issue that will be addressed in the 4th class of this series. The matter is included here because we must establish in our minds how this is to be accomplished prior to game play. If it means spending time making the materials needed, purchasing them, or assigning others the responsibility to "bring their own miniature" or some such, every necessary detail must be worked out before game play begins.
6. We should develop a specific way in which we indicate when game play has begun and when it is suspended. When the game is in motion, we are in our rights to dictate that every word the players say can potentially be heard by an NPC who is "present" in the same locale where the player characters are. If a player shouts out in a combat, "Use the Fireball," then we are free to assume that every intelligent enemy in the combat has also heard this, and is therefore free to act accordingly.
We need not impose a constraint to this degree; but we may declare, "When this candle is lit, the enemy can hear every word you say." Likewise, we can stipulate that the clock is running when players must make a decision about their characters in combat, or recognise that if they're communicating about something while at a tavern, the other patrons can overhear them, or any other similar game consequence might apply based on the player's present circumstances. Players may perceive that they are talking to players, but since it is characters within the game who are obstensibly being represented, a player offering a strategy can be described as "doing so out loud in the game world," should that seem rational given what's happening.
We may refer to this as the "state of play," which disregards the basic conceit of players who assume that they're allowed to have a group mind with regards to planning and action, without this needing explanation. Should we adopt this idea, however, the players should be informed; and it falls on us to light the candle, and ensure it stays lit, before we impose the rule. It's probably best if the candle, or whatever physical representation we use, is put in a place where it can't be blown out or its purpose subtly interrupted, since during the game we're likely not to have the time to keep an eye on it.
Collectively, these precepts contribute to the governance we're able to impose on the game, remembering always that the players must have as much understanding of how they work just as we ourselves do. Dungeon mastering is communication, not just of game play but the structure around game play; and we must ourselves have a full and ready comprehension of that structure, before sitting down to start.
At the same time, despite our broad authority, we must perceive that DMs must act strictly within the bounds of the agreed-upon rules. We cannot invent rules without discussion, or make decisions that contradict the written rules. Our authority is interpretive and situational, NOT legislative. For example, if a rolled die clearly indicates a hit, we cannot redefine the target's armour class or increase the number of hit points the target has, even in unusual circumstances. We should, if more enemy suddenly enters a room, have a justifiable reason for why the did not arrive earlier, as well as a defensible explanation for where they came from within the structure of the setting we're presenting. We cannot, and should not, simply invent them out of the air, despite that being in our power.
Additionally, while our calls are final, the rules prohibit us from arbitrarily applying penalties or making decisions based on emotion or bias. If player A performs an action that saves the kingdom, we should not reward the crown to player B, simply because we prefer player B. Further, if we eject a player from a game, it must be based on misconduct or a violation of conduct codes — failure to appear, open disrespect for the rules, an excessive display of emotional dissatisfaction. Lastly, we should not influence gameplay to produce the results we want, regardless of the reason; we are here to be neutral, not to enforce an outcome that we might desire, merely because we desire it. Our expectations must end at the setting's edge — and should not apply to the player's success outside those game processes that produce success.
From here, we're duty bound to consider a number of custodian-like duties that must be upheld prior to our actually running the game, fixing in our head what makes a game judgment "correct" for ourselves. This requires our interpretation of the game we want to run, and what we want to achieve in our part of running it. Let's address a number of these points one at a time, with the understanding that this list is not and cannot be exhaustive, given the nature of role-playing.
1. The DM must require strict observance of all game rules, by the DM also, governing the manner in which the players communicate and accept the consequences of their actions. This includes limitations upon what "coaching" the DM is allowed to provide, including the freedom to express unsolicited advice, and what consequences ought to befall the DM who fails to uphold the rules or these expectations.
This means observing the rules by submitting to them in the same way the players are expected to. We thus apply them consistently, without alteration or omission — within the best of our ability, there being so many rules — and accept the consequences of those rules where it comes to how non-player monsters, persons or game entities are affected. If the players "luck out" and kill our favourite monster, we accept that as a matter of course and do not invent reasons why it hasn't happened. If a rule is vague, and we are required to interpret the rule, then we make a note of that interpretation and that interpretation becomes a precedent for future incidents.
If no rules exist, we review the game setting itself: can a judgment be rendered on physical limitations deriving from natural laws, or the premise established by already existing magic, or the likelihood of a given event taking place? If not, then instead of imposing an arbitrary ruling, we should allow arguments for or against to be presented by the players, then attempt to rule in their favour if we can — later returning to the issue by establishing a rule of some kind for it, then directly informing the players that while it worked that one time, now the rules clearly state it won't again, and therefore they should not rely upon it. Slowly, steadily, this approach suspends rulings intended to defacto block player actions, while imposing a new structure for later on that allows the players to make informed decisions. In this manner, we use rulings in a measured, fair and pragmatic fashion, not as a tool for our maintain our DM's power, but as a guide to growing the world's internal logic over time.
In giving counsel to a player in-game, we are justifiable if that counsel is to make the player aware of a rule or a long-established option the player may not be aware of. For example, if a rule states that it's possible to run forward at an enemy, draw an axe and throw it all as one movement, then the player is entitled to know this as an option. If the distance to be leaped is 9 feet, and the player has automatically discounted that as an option because they believe they cannot jump 9 feet, then this applies as something their character can do, and therefore something the player has a right to know about their character. We're not saying to the player, "Jump the distance," we're only saying, "You can jump the distance." Anything the DM believes the player's character would know ought to be conveyed to the player, as a matter of indicating what the rules say about the character's knowledge and state of mind, thereby allowing the DM to inform the player thereto.
The DM should not tell which door should be opened, nor give information that the characters could not possibly know, nor give advice in the form of, "You'd be smart to do this," or any such judgmentally framed manner of speaking about a player's choice of action. The game's integrity hinges on the idea that player choices are meaningful because they arise from the players themselves — not from cues, nudges or value-laden suggestions from the person running the world... and absolutely not granted to one player more often than any other. The DM should not play favourites in who gets to know and who doesn't.
Prior to game play, we must review these precepts in our mind — and, where we perceive ourselves that something isn't wholly clear in our mind, we should sit and make specific rules regarding those things, which can then be explained to the players before such cases ever emerge. Suppose we have a situation where a player chooses that his character is going to set the tavern on fire, without cause, or again without cause, kill an NPC that the player perceives exists solely to give the party exposition about the setting. Is it acceptable for the player to perform either action, given that a certain meta-gaming is imposed here on the character's mental state. Players are sometimes ready to say, "This is something my character would do," as a justification for something which, in fact, the player is prepared to do regardless of the character's knowledge, training, awareness of social norms or expectation of consequences that would certainly arise from committing such an act. Players are easily allowed to "live with" what a character might do, but is it relevant whether or not characters, being people, would be able to "live with themselves?" Is it even relevant to consider this? A DM should decide, beforehand, what the policy is, because this is bound to come up.
It is perfectly acceptable to impose a rule that violent disruptive action without cause is not permitted, so long as this rule is applied to everyone, including the DM, and "cause" is rigidly defined. Because this is a game, and games have boundaries, this is completely legitimate rule in any form of game. Two game pieces sharing the same square, say in Monopoly, cannot "steal one another's money" simply because of this proximal coincidence. The purpose of D&D can be defined as the players vs. threats in the game world; anything that isn't a threat, therefore, is out of bounds. It is as simple as that. Players not ready to play by this rule need not apply.
2. The player's character sheets must be kept accurately, in a fashion that is readable, accounting for every possible game element including, but not limited to, hit points, experience, wealth, equipment and details relating to the character directly, such as height, weight, present armour class, present level, present lists of abilities and spells, etcetera. These sheets are subject to inspection by the DM at any time.
Characters sheets are not private. Players may record private notes outside their character sheets, but any element that applies to the game must count as a part of the knowledge that the dungeon master, as well as the player, is privy to. Moreover, because other characters live in the company of the player's character, any overtly evident equipment should be included in the knowledge of those other characters; for example, how many weapons a character has, how many belts he or she wears, how tall the character is, how much he eats, or what other large items that are carried or stored upon a cart or an animal. If the character owns a house, then unless very careful effort is taken in-game, then it stands to reason the other characters would know about it, having probably seen it from the outside for certain.
Because character sheets serve a game function, players must reliably maintain them, and be prepared to offer explanations for how certain items came to be included on their sheets, or how it was that they used a piece of equipment in the past that does not now appear on their sheet. If the character's experience points are grossly out of line with others in the party, or if they have far more wealth, it is upon the player to allay the suspicions this arouses, and NOT our responsibility as DM to be forgiving or to overlook such discrepancies. As custodians of the game and the governing body dictating how the game is played, we have a right to ask how a player came to have such and such an amount of something, and to receive satisfactory answers. If we do not, we are licensed by our position to make revisions or restore the balance of the character to match the circumstances of other characters around the table.
Players overly concerned with this should take steps to account, with language, every substantial gain they make, so that they can then present their case in full to the DM, if need be. Otherwise, they should accept that it's more than likely they've committed a perfectly acceptable mathematical error, adding an extra zero where they shouldn't have, or misunderstanding a number when it was given. Thus no punitive consequences should be imposed upon a player who has kept an inexplicable character sheet. It need only be aligned with the sheets of other persons, as necessary.
3. An understanding must be conveyed to the participants how dice fit into the game's structure, which dice may be used, and what may be done with dice while in play. Restrictions on the random tossing of dice, which creates ambient, distracting noise, can be curtailed fairly. How the dice are thrown must be addressed, as well as what counts as a "throw" and what counts as a "land."
Any die which, due to its origin, shape, apparent materials or possessing large holes, gouges, misshaping and such, may be fairly suspended from use in the game, regardless of the player's attachment to that die. Many dice made by computer 3D generation can often be counted as insufficiently weighted or balanced, and therefore not "official" in the eyes of the governing body. Certain dice whose colour makes it difficult to read from across the table, so that the result must be taken on the player's word rather than by direct observation, may similarly be discounted. Such items may be wonderful bits of fetish-kitsch, but they're not sufficient for proper game play. All sports and game governing bodies have such rules.
Likewise, it is within the dungeon master's privilege to decide if computer generated dice systems are acceptable for use in game play, and under which conditions. For example, it may be possible to use an electronic die roll to determine who gets the cherished magical treasure that's been given, but not where an attack roll is needed. Such stipulations can be outlined and defined as acceptable in some circumstances and not in others. Of course, where a roll against other players is to take place, those other players must unanimously accept the digital tool according to their judgment, regardless of the DM's position. Fairness is not only vertical (DM-to-player), it must be lateral as well (player-to-player).
As it is possible to practice throwing even 20-sided dice in just such a manner, letting them roll off the fingers with minimal contact with the table, that the result can be controlled. It's therefore within the governance of die use to stipulate that a die must be dropped from a certain height, or thrown a certain distance, or that a tray be used, or that a cup or die-tower be used, to ensure a correctly random result. We can further decide if a die must land on a flat surface, so that even if the tilt of the die is minimal, and the result apparently evident, the fact that there is a tilt can be dictated as a need to re-roll the die. In addition, it can be stipulated that only die rolls that land on a table, or within a defined area of the table, be counted. Such regulations, again, reflect those of sports where what is counted as "out-of-bounds" applies, or where a pitcher's foot must be placed upon throwing the ball, or what counts as "touching a piece," or any number of other like restrictions found throughout the gaming world.
4. We should decide if players who do not attend should be assigned a consequence, and have an explanation for what their characters are doing when those players are not present, within the bounds of believability; while also stipulating that within a game, the bounds of believability can be stretched quite a lot.
For example, if a player is not in attendance, we may impose a fine of food eaten or coins lost, due to the character's choice to go on a bender away from the party, if the party were located at the start of the running at the time the player did not attend. The character can then "catch up" to the party afterwards, should they attend the next session. Likewise, the non-attending player's character might simply "hang back" at the rear of a group in a dungeon, fearful of engaging, stepping out for the combat to pass water, or even that they took part and somehow failed to hit every attempt to do so, while being missed consistently by the enemy (no die rolls necessary). In the case of a battle under these conditions, however, it should be noted that if the entire party is killed, then the non-attending player's character should also die; after all, the player not in attendance is, in truth, trusting the party to protect their character. If the party is unable to do so, then the logical consequence should result.
We may decide whether or not a "custodian" of the character can be assigned by the player in advance, providing that the player provide a copy of the character sheet, at least sufficiently that those details applying to the game can be known. It's suggested that during this time, the player's character be considered a "temporary henchfolk," and thus receive half the experience and share of treasure, in compensation for the player not appearing. It's assumed the departed player will choose a fellow player who is trustworthy, and concerned about keeping the departed player's character alive, but if this arrangement is allowed, the DM is under no obligation to treat the assigned character as special with regards to game consequences or probable survival.
If the player quits, or is absent so often that we decide the game is better off without them, commensurate with the agreement of the party, then the continued existence of this henchfolk is subject to the DM's judgment. The character, now an NPC, could remain as is; or the character could be demoted further to that of "follower," with a quarter share in experience in treasure rather than half. Or the character might be said to have "decided to seek adventure elsewhere," whereupon they cease to be part of the campaign. The DM may freely take over the character as an NPC as well.
5. We are responsible as the DM for providing sufficient clarity in outlining the game world, with our words, our body language and with visual aids, sufficient for the players to be able to determine where they are, what consequences they face, what's happening and a clear idea of what a practical response would be.
This is a vast and considerable issue that will be addressed in the 4th class of this series. The matter is included here because we must establish in our minds how this is to be accomplished prior to game play. If it means spending time making the materials needed, purchasing them, or assigning others the responsibility to "bring their own miniature" or some such, every necessary detail must be worked out before game play begins.
6. We should develop a specific way in which we indicate when game play has begun and when it is suspended. When the game is in motion, we are in our rights to dictate that every word the players say can potentially be heard by an NPC who is "present" in the same locale where the player characters are. If a player shouts out in a combat, "Use the Fireball," then we are free to assume that every intelligent enemy in the combat has also heard this, and is therefore free to act accordingly.
We need not impose a constraint to this degree; but we may declare, "When this candle is lit, the enemy can hear every word you say." Likewise, we can stipulate that the clock is running when players must make a decision about their characters in combat, or recognise that if they're communicating about something while at a tavern, the other patrons can overhear them, or any other similar game consequence might apply based on the player's present circumstances. Players may perceive that they are talking to players, but since it is characters within the game who are obstensibly being represented, a player offering a strategy can be described as "doing so out loud in the game world," should that seem rational given what's happening.
We may refer to this as the "state of play," which disregards the basic conceit of players who assume that they're allowed to have a group mind with regards to planning and action, without this needing explanation. Should we adopt this idea, however, the players should be informed; and it falls on us to light the candle, and ensure it stays lit, before we impose the rule. It's probably best if the candle, or whatever physical representation we use, is put in a place where it can't be blown out or its purpose subtly interrupted, since during the game we're likely not to have the time to keep an eye on it.
Collectively, these precepts contribute to the governance we're able to impose on the game, remembering always that the players must have as much understanding of how they work just as we ourselves do. Dungeon mastering is communication, not just of game play but the structure around game play; and we must ourselves have a full and ready comprehension of that structure, before sitting down to start.
No comments:
Post a Comment