Knights & Knaves Alehouse

I'm more relaxed as a DM than as a player. As I secretly, and sometimes not so secretly, root for the players while DMing, there's no strong motivation for me to win at anything. As a player, I'm Pierce Hawthorne, but without being such a prick (I think ) Bitd, we had more pvp going on, and that was no holds barred sometimes. The DMing knowledge came in handy then.

Thinking about it now as I write this, my style as a player is more like water pressure when I want a particular thing done. It's not much, but low-level constant.

Chainsaw wrote: I tend to be bored, which sometimes makes me more reckless.

Chainsaw, I think you speak directly to something I've noticed.

Some referees are really better just staying referees. I have noticed that some really good refs get bored and restless when playing and then they can kind of start acting out and often (inadvertently? (trying to be charitable here)) screw over the party.

I have found this, needless to say, as a player, to be kind of a bummer. I love to play with folks who are good refs who then, in turn, also enjoy cooperative, coordinated strategy kind of play. There are some referees-turned-player that are good at cooperative, coordinated, strategic play as well, of course. I am sure there is a good balance between all sorts of different types. But the restless reckless types stick in my memory.

For me, since i spend so much time being the DM, i relish any chance i get to be just a player more so, than i used to, when i was just a player only..

As a player I tend to adopt different roles, sometimes leader, other times follower, very helpful, or secretive. Once the stakes get higher, I am more likely to try and get everybody to work as a team and "meta-game" with rules knowledge and resource management. I try to avoid challenging the game master on rule implementations as much as possible (especially if there is some problem and the other players are asking for my opinion on a rule), but have been known to get annoyed if a bad ruling screws us over [e.g. 2E weapon speed rules, or 1EOA "one round to draw a sword" bullshit].

Do you try to push the DM into adopting house rules, YOU use when you game master?

When I play, I let the DM run the game as he sees fit. I don't question rulings, and don't offer rules advice unless asked. (Sometimes that can be painful, if you have a poor DM or one with questionable rules knowledge.)

I tend to play aggressively, but I think that's partially because I'm rarely very attached to the PC, and I'm willing to take some risks. Fortune favors the bold, after all (unless you're in the Tomb of Horrors).

I can only think of one (convention) game where I got frustrated enough with the DMing to just say "the hell with it" and play without any regard for the PC. It was a really bad game. (Some of you were in the same game and know what I'm talking about.)

Philotomy Jurament wrote:When I play, I let the DM run the game as he sees fit. I don't question rulings, and don't offer rules advice unless asked. (Sometimes that can be painful, if you have a poor DM or one with questionable rules knowledge.)

I tend to play aggressively, but I think that's partially because I'm rarely very attached to the PC, and I'm willing to take some risks. Fortune favors the bold, after all (unless you're in the Tomb of Horrors).

I can only think of one (convention) game where I got frustrated enough with the DMing to just say "the hell with it" and play without any regard for the PC. It was a really bad game. (Some of you were in the same game and know what I'm talking about.)

QFT, all the way through.

I hadn't been a player until very recently, and then only in PBP. I try real hard to separate my DM knowledge when I play & don't look up stuff that my PC wouldn't know. My poor memory helps in this regard. I also try real hard to not question the DMs judgement even if it is different from mine. One issue I've found is that we all DM this game a little differently. Sometimes this causes problems where your expectations (because of how you would rule an action if you were DM) result in certain actions. These actions then fail because it doesn't match with how your current DM sees things.

Personally I don't see it as possible to play D&D as a player while DMing, if that's the question. I like to do both, and I can certainly understand losing some gaming ability if I never played the game and only refereed it. Same as any mental game or sport.

For me, D&D will always be an old school game. An actual game. A designed structure the players manipulate in order to accomplish particular goals within the imaginary apparatus called the game. As it is a hidden design game D&D, like Mastermind, can't really be played by the person sitting behind the screen. Not that we can't, say, create Chess and not fully understand how best to play it. But rather that setting up and balancing the campaign world, as well as all of the modules within it, according to the carefully crafted hidden game system I've chosen to use, demands I hold as much insider knowledge as possible about that game while running it. Not to mention that I must playtest the whole and every module in it specifically looking for unforeseen gaps and loopholes I hadn't recognized during design. That brute testing is just like playing the game in some ways, as I am moving PCs (including the players PCs if it's a current game), though in the rather pointed playtesting way which pushes certain strategies beyond the norm.

In the case of D&D, I think a great DM has to be a great player and have successfully finished the game all the way to the highest levels in each class at least once. That's not true in reverse as players are always expected to start in position of neophyte and I think it's more exciting and fun to be in the role of not knowing, yet learning with every movement.

howandwhy99 wrote:In the case of D&D, I think a great DM has to be a great player and have successfully finished the game all the way to the highest levels in each class at least once.

So basically you're saying there are no great DMs in D&D?

Kellri wrote:

howandwhy99 wrote:In the case of D&D, I think a great DM has to be a great player and have successfully finished the game all the way to the highest levels in each class at least once.

So basically you're saying there are no great DMs in D&D?

No, I'm not saying that. Lots of great players and great DMs exist. And in my experience plenty of D&D players have played all of the 4 classes from low level to high. But what I'm saying is more of an ideal for DMs. To be able to design and run a game with game components to challenge every class at every level a DM has to be intimately familiar with the entire game, preferably from the point of view of a player.

howandwhy99 wrote:

Kellri wrote:

howandwhy99 wrote:In the case of D&D, I think a great DM has to be a great player and have successfully finished the game all the way to the highest levels in each class at least once.

So basically you're saying there are no great DMs in D&D?

No, I'm not saying that. Lots of great players and great DMs exist. And in my experience plenty of D&D players have played all of the 4 classes from low level to high. But what I'm saying is more of an ideal for DMs. To be able to design and run a game with game components to challenge every class at every level a DM has to be intimately familiar with the entire game, preferably from the point of view of a player.

Gygax would not have met these criteria.