The DM/Player Line

[Gaumer]

Saw this on the outskirts of the internet this morning

http://i.imgur.com/BMVR3.jpg

Had to share.

A cool RP events for one guy, sure, but a clear example of a great player showing up a DM with less than game-worthy intentions.

This great little portion of a single campaign of D&D stemmed from a PC hiding something from the DM for no other reason than to make a point, with that spiraling into a simply wonderful origin story that would not have been created had the player just told the DM what was up from the start.

How much should a player hide from the DM in order to facilitate things, not exactly like, but comparative to the organic nature if the story from the link?

While there isn't as much basis in "teaching the DM a lesson" in this, because I think that's just silly, the DM and other players got a really nice treat in trying to destroy and ultimately destroying this arbitrary item, which only was given any sort of credence by the player that created it because of the desire of the DM to destroy it. I think it shows an intriguing aspect of the game that can be missed sometimes because of the nature of the roles of the people playing the game.

[Beta Ray Bill Cosby]

I think this is a good example of an uncomfortable social situation that could have been avoided had the player and DM just talked it out. Did something awesome come out of it? Sure, but that's a little like using your insurance money to buy a nicer car after yours was totaled in an accident. Do you have a car that you like more? yes. Was it a good moment in your life when a mazda t-boned your car in an intersection? I would imagine not.

I think it takes an incredibly mature group and a game that has been specifically calibrated in order for the players to keep secret info from the DM. Anything you don't tell the DM might be invalidated by future events and likewise a revelation from a character's past may invalidate entire swaths of plot the DM had prepared.

As far as the DM goes he was clearly operating under what I consider to be a pretty common misconception. That attacking your players in-game will somehow get them to stop what they're doing. It's D&D, games are more fun when you DO get jumped by a black dragon. So he was basically saying "You won't tell me about Tarrasque Ruxpin, eh? Well! See how you like THIS AWESOMELY FUN ENCOUNTER! HA HA HA!"

In the end this story breaks down to "Kevin asked me a question I didn't want to answer, so he was a douche for a while, in the end I was a douche back to him in front of our friends and that totally shut him up" Except there was a role playing game in there somewhere.

[Navarre]

I agree with Rodrigo. If there is an issue between the DM and Player it needs to be discussed between them, not reconciled in-game.

This also should not be a public spectacle. Even if the point to be resolved involves others in can be addressed without a confrontation during game time.

The DM needs to facilitate the game with the intent of making sure everyone has an opportunity to enjoy their character, the game, and the social environment. The Player has the same responsibility toward others to some degree.

Resolving meta-issues in-game is immature.

[Gaumer]

I tend to agree.

But that's the thing, there wasn't even really an issue before the DM imagined one based on the player's PR style, changed his own style of gameplay, which facilitated the ongoing issue. It may not have been as organic as that, but let's imagine that it was.

Is there ANY part of a character that should be hidden from a DM, and, contrarily, is there really any way to tell the DM everything about your character? Its obviously some middle ground, but what is the proper balance? If I can't truly relate everything then something is hidden from the DM, is there any part of a character that can be hidden from the DM in order to meet the ends found in this example, without the evils of the methods that contradict the spirit of the game? Maybe some examples of this sort of planned or unplanned "surprises" (if that's event he right word) on DMs or players?

I read the link I posted and was intrigued by the whole thing. Of course, I understand that everything could have been solved by communication and loss of shoulder chips, but if the game was still fun and was more fluid and organic than perceived, it would have been a very awesome game to play. Scrolls armor, ANYTHING could have been in play as being damaged because of the changes made by the DM, which totally changed the make-up of, what seems to be, a successful game. It would be neat to go back and see where those changes influenced things directly.

[Navarre]

If I can't truly relate everything then something is hidden from the DM, is there any part of a character that can be hidden from the DM in order to meet the ends found in this example, without the evils of the methods that contradict the spirit of the game?

If you can't then that's no one's fault. But, no, I don't think there is any reason or benefit in withholding information from the DM.

[TheThinMan]

I feel like keep information from the DM undermines the cooperative narrative of the game. PCs keep secrets from one another and the DM keeps secrets from the players to enhance the narrative, so that when the secret is revealed AMAZINGLYWONDERAWESOMENISTIC things happen and everyone has fun.

Also as the DM is the director of the narrative he/she/it needs all of the information that would inform the plot up front. I wouldn't hide half the Batman script from Christopher Nolan and expect he could finish a quality movie when I sprang the rest of it on him and demanded he film it posthaste!

In summation...yeah i agree with you guys.

[Stplmstr]

I agree thin man. And if you break down the story told here there is no reason the "cool character backstory" couldn't or wouldn't have happened if the DM knew about it. Ultimately what happened was an adversarial interaction was created between 2 players that one was able to spin to make the other seem dumb, and I don't know that any game is enhanced by that. It is supposed to be fun right?

(I say 2 players as the DM is playing the game too, and to create the distinction that conflict between characters in game is fine and can enhance the game, but pulling that conflict out of the game and making it between the actual persons is not.)

[Strifeter]

Unfortunately I have found that if someone brings personal problems to the game table that no matter how hard people try, there will always be a conflict in-game.

Ultimately DnD is a roll playing game, and that requires some form of disconnect from the real world. I once had a DM that whenever he had a problem with someone outside of game would then punish the PC in game. Usually with a conflict of overpowering proportions and the PC would either die or be captured with next to no chance of escape or rescue.

It's this problem that I find breaks up most games. Instead of addressing the problem the conflicts are brought into the game and can ruin the experience for everyone.

[Revenant Sorrow]

I think there is something to be said about not having your characters entire story set from the beginning of the game and everything that character has ever encountered and interacted with being known to the DM from the start if for no other reason then the player him/herself may not fully understand the world they're going to be dropped in if the campaign setting is a home brew environment.

I had a player whom I was letting create the next town because in pregame text he had been there before. At some point he mentioned an inn that he had a line of credit at. I have no issue with the characters having a line of credit of 20g or so mainly because I'm not a rules lawyer and don't make them pay for drinks or eat it's all done as a sub-textual part of the story. Just before making it to the town my player threw me a curve and said the line of credit was at an inn he owned and carried the dead around with him at all times. The inn was left in the care of his cousin. This left me 5 minuets to figure out what to do before they got to his inn.

I came up with there being a massive shift in power the whoever governed this town gave rightful ownership of what ever land they could stake a claim in. This left my player a little upset about the Inn he just lost, but didn't break the game either by giving a level 3 player an inn that they own and could just sit there and do what ever he wanted in his inn. It seamed to work for me and i would say curve balls are an awesome tool for players to keep DM's on their toes. If a DM isn't ready for their players to do something crazy then that DM will always be caught with his/her pants down.

[Navarre]

In my opinion, a good D&D game is never the DM vs the player. That is not the role of either.

[Revenant Sorrow]

Games never should become Player VS DM. I think that tends to come from people not being able to handle the curve balls. Players and DM's need to have that expectation of this is where we are this is where I would like to go now how are we going to get there. To often it becomes the DM saying well i want you to get to the dragon but only if you wander aimlessly through the forest for 12 days a fight hordes of forest monsters first. While a player is saying why can't i just hire a guide to take me strait to the dragon i'll be there in 3 days kill the dragon and we can move on.

As DM's i think sometimes we can forget to plan for multiple outcomes as i know i do. However i only come up with one set of encounters and if the players want to go in another direction then what i was going to take them. I'll still have them fight the same creatures but come up with a new reason on the fly for why Forest Elf tirbe is hanging out in the wasteland. Also as Rodrigo Often does just reskin the monsters unless you players have studied the monster manual then they'll never know.

[Navarre]

If the DM is doing things well, players may rarely see the man behind the curtain.

[Strifeter]

If the DM is doing things well, players may rarely see the man behind the curtain.

I agree with you Nav but I also feel it's a players responsibility to have an interest in following where the DMs story goes. It has to be a collaboration to make truly awesome moments.

Player vs. DM or vice versa takes away the enjoyment of the game. It has to be a give and take. Your character will not always come out on top. You just have to roll with the punches (SW flying tower shield of doom comes to mind). hehe right Nav.

[Navarre]

Right! 

It is truly a collaborative effort. It takes a group of players who will work together, out of game more than in game, to create a fun game for all. One of those "all" is the DM, who has his own responsibilities.

If everyone works together, it's magic. If even one person does not, that becomes the limiter of the game until he or she is dealt with in some fashion. (possibly by bashing from a great height with a falling tower shield)

[Strifeter]

(possibly by bashing from a great height with a falling tower shield)

I know this elf you could call.


Be careful though........he is kind of moody.