How much can a dungeon master pp?

Sorry if I'm not using the right terms; my friends and I are new to D&D, and playing it for fun. We've been playing for a few months now, and the only thing that bugs me is how much our dungeon master power plays/godmodes/etc our player characters.

It's minor things, and usually for laughs. For example, we did a perception check in the rain - one of us gets a 2, so DM says they get rain in their eyes (fair) and then slips and falls on their ass (well....)

Another example: constitution check on a rocky boat. Mostly for fun, to see if we get seasick. My character does, which is fair, and she tells me that he pukes on the deck. If anything, I would have made him puke overboard, but she tells me that I got off easy, and that at least I didn't puke on myself.

It bugs me that she's telling us what are characters are doing... Especially in situations where they have some control.

Any help or similar experience? I don't want to make her feel bad, since she's trying to just make it funny, and she doesn't have a player character to have fun with. But it's irritating me when she says "your character does x y and z".

I generally frown on and avoid doing that sort of thing when I GM. I know some people like doing things like that but I personally thin it's shitty to overly dictate what the player does. I've seen a lot of stories of people failing an X social roll and the DM going on and on about exactly all the awful, retarded shit the character does, like failing a persuade roll and your character aggressively insulting the NPC while pissing in their own mouths

A good rule of thumb is that after a roll the GM tells whether the character succeeded or failed, but lets the player describe how.

Give her the Dungeon Master's book, tell her how you honestly feel about it and say maybe she could improve her DMing with that.

That's a good thought, thank you for that.

I'll try to think of a way to bring it up with her without sounding bratty (I'm the only one with an issue, far as I know, but the others are more soft-spoken, so who knows).

>But it's irritating me when
Start by saying this out loud to your DM, and then finish the statement out loud.

I'll give it a try, gentler if I can, since she is sensitive and we're all close friends.

In the dynamic of this group of friends is... I'm the one who can take things too seriously, they want to relax and chill and have a fun silly campaign, so it might come off as me being a buzzkill. It's our first time doing D&D, but I've done RP for years, so the "don't fucking godmode" rule is deeper in my blood.

I'll try to think of something gentle that won't go over her head, lol.

I got a GM that does that, but it's usually kind of fair, okay I failed the Fear test and I'm tied up, screaming and flailing is expected, but it does get annoying.

The ability to decide what my character does when x bad thing happens is something I want to have, since it helps me develop him more... I get the frustration.

Another player made a joking tweet about it just now, since we finished playing:

(my name): you can't do this to me! its MY character!
(dm's name): well, im God, so

Sigh. I guess if everyone else thinks it's funny I shouldn't rock the boat.

>A good rule of thumb is that after a roll the GM tells whether the character succeeded or failed, but lets the player describe how.
That's not at all a universal thing. In the groups I've played with, it's much more common for the players to describe the action they're intending to do, but for the GM to describe the results.

Usually, the GM shouldn't tell you what actions your character decides to take. Conscious control is up to the player. With that said, certain reflexive actions -- ones that you might take entirely without thinking in real life -- can unobjectionably fall under the GM's purview from time to time. The puking thing, for instance, does not seem unreasonable to me. Like, when somebody pukes on the floor at a party, it's rarely because they *chose* to puke on the floor. It was beyond their conscious control, and it makes sense that a similar approach is taken with your character. Whether you puke over the rail or on the deck might depend on how badly you fail your constitution roll.

At the same time, the GM should be careful not to undermine your character, or take away your agency. They especially shouldn't turn your character into something you don't want him to be. It's a bit difficult to judge from your examples (I don't have a full context, and don't know how often stuff like this happens), but I could see getting annoyed at a GM that has hammy, unfortunate shit happen to your characters too often (busting your ass on a perception check of 2 seems pretty lame to me). But this is mostly down to the tone of the game, and not because I necessarily see the GM stepping into things that should be restricted to player control.

Its an alternative DM style. I prefer to allow my players free agency. A more experienced DM I play with frequently has stated one of the worst things you can do to a person is prat fall their character without their consent.

He considers it disrespectful in the extreme. I am not so offended by it if it leads to something good.

ie, the big strong dragonborn kept getting KO'd by spear butt to head (level one, helpless) by a brutish thug. A slaver. Cue two scenes later he gets to fight that same thug in the arena to earn his and his friends freedom. It was cathartic and he regained his face.

There is a fine and largely subjective line between the GM adding flavor to the rolls to make the game more interesting, and overriding a player's agency by forcing them to react to things in specific ways.

What your GM is doing, based on your examples, seems entirely fine to me, but like I said, it is subjective. Some players get furious if a GM adds even minor details, like, "you drop your weapon" on a critical failure. Others don't mind at all when a GM tells them straight up how they feel about things. If you are making reasonable requests, like say, "could I just try to throw up over the side", and the GM is not allowing you to at least make a roll for that, she is being extreme. But as long as she isn't telling you what you should think or do, she is not really crossing a line technically. It's just a matter of how much detail you want her to give and how much you want left up to you.

I would just mention to her when it bothers you. If she adjusts, either in general or specifically to you, because some players like that, then fine. If she doesn't, maybe leave the game, maybe just shrug it off. Depends how much it bothers you.

Either way I wouldn't get too worked up over it. By bad GMing standards, this is super tame.

This is a weird question, but how old are you? I recall my bumbling days as a beginner GM, and new player to 3.0 back 2006 or so.

I guess its just idle curiosity that makes me ask.

I get where you're coming from. I do like knowing that it's more a "style" than her just...breaking rules, I guess. We're all inexperienced and just banging this out in practice.

It doesn't make the game not-fun as a whole, there's just times where she goes too far -- yeah, she did refuse me when I asked if I could puke over the side instead (because my character's got a bit of a complex and wouldn't to appear weak in front of others, etc), but it's definitely not a game-ending issue. It just irked me.

Not weird, don't worry! We're four girls all in our mid-to-late twenties. All of us DM have experience roleplaying/worldbuilding in one way or another, but it's our first time playing a game like this.

all of us have experience*
Not sure why 'DM' is there

>That's not at all a universal thing.
Sadly not, but it's still a good idea to let the players own to the successes and failures of their characters. Say, if their character loses a social conflict it should be up to the player to decide how they lose, whether they're cowed into silence of lose their temper and leave in a huff, and so on. The die roll decides whether you get what you want or not, but the particulars of it come from the character and thus the player.

>Sadly not, but it's still a good idea to let the players own to the successes and failures of their characters.
I find it's often more immersive to have the GM define the outcomes.

>Say, if their character loses a social conflict it should be up to the player to decide how they lose
Yeah... that seems a bit different. But then I've seldom been in a campaign where PCs can be socially judo'd like this.

There's basically two levels at work here, game mechanics and game fiction. The game mechanics (die rolls etc.) dictate what is going to happen, and it's up to the player how to implement that in the terms of game fiction. The character reacts to what is happening, and that's ultimately the player's interpretation. Of course there's nothing preventing the GM from suggesting what should happen in their opinion!

>How much can a dungeon master pp?

>That's not at all a universal thing. In the groups I've played with, it's much more common for the players to describe the action they're intending to do, but for the GM to describe the results.
This takes control away from the player. I detest this, as it means you are playing the character for the player.

I want to roleplay what I do wrong. If I try to persuade the blacksmith to sell me that gear at a lower price, and I mess it up, I will tell him that his thrash wares aren't worth their price, and that his best bet is just selling everything to me for a gold piece. I don't want the GM to tell me that I accidentally offended his wife or his ancestors, and peed in the vase worth thousands of gold pieces. Neither of those makes sense for my character, but telling him he is a shit blacksmith is.

The moment the GM made my character do this, however, I have to think of why he did it, and incorporate it. Once this has happened 10+ times, it becomes increasingly difficult, and at some point, the character seems like a schizofrenic, who sometimes just gets a completely insane thought, and runs with it, with no relation to past experiences or usual personality.

That causes a huge disconnect. Nothing makes me lose interest in the game faster.

I want to play my character, through good and bad, and in the end, the outcome is the same (I still failed the rolls, and thus, the action), so I have never understood why some GMs don't just allow their players to play their characters. It makes it easier for the GM too.

>she
lol women, amirite?

>If I try to persuade the blacksmith to sell me that gear at a lower price, and I mess it up, I will tell him that his thrash wares aren't worth their price, and that his best bet is just selling everything to me for a gold piece. I don't want the GM to tell me that I accidentally offended his wife or his ancestors, and peed in the vase worth thousands of gold pieces.
All of these* would involve hijacking conscious control of the character and telling you how he behaves, which I wouldn't support. That's entirely different from telling you that your character slips or throws up on the floor.

*With the possible exception of accidentally offending his wife.

True. One thing I picked up from Burning Wheel and have carried over is negotiating the results of success and failure with the player before rolling. If they succeed they get what they wanted and I can't mitigate or diminish that in any way, and if they fail they get what was agreed upon beforehand. It makes proceedings more fair, but the downside is that it's not very compatible with immersionist style of playing.

in general a lot. the examples provided aren't unusual and your best bet is to respond with
>com'on, I get the comic relief part and all that but our PCs are supposed to be heroes! don't make them look ridiculous so often please!
and dont forget the please

>it means you are playing the character for the player.
well, the GM can take over control when the PC loses control of himself. other examples would inlcude being drunk, insanity, mind control, fear, etc.

That's quite the different situation, because there's game mechanics enforcing the loss of control of the character (and as a general rule no-one is very happy about those happening in game either).

Whilst the DM determining the outcome of your failures on the world is pretty normal, they're taking it into a weird darker shade of grey area.

For example, ruling that you have to throw up due to seasickness is fine, but the embellishment of making you do it on deck instead of leaving it up to you to decide how to play out your need to throw up is a bit odd.

Getting rain in the eyes on a failed perception check, sure. Having them fall on their ass is pretty out there, it would make sense if they were walking on rainslicked grass and people were being subjected to acrobatics/balance, but the outcome of falling over when you try to detect something is just bizarrely non-sequitur.

slipping or puking? it's EXACTLY the same situation. each time was preceded by a test. that is EXACTLY how rpgs by default work - when your character loses control of himself, the GM gets to narrate what happens to him.

now if you and your group have a social contract that handles it differently, more power to you. wouldn't fly when I GM though.

normally epic failures are tied to critical failure/fumble rolls, I will give you that. but, yeah, people in real life don't always get to decide where they throw up or whether they slip or not. some even slip on their own vomit.

Slipping and puking, sure, but not mind control, insanity or fear that you were talking about in that post.

>I want to roleplay what I do wrong. If I try to persuade the blacksmith to sell me that gear at a lower price, and I mess it up, I will tell him that his thrash wares aren't worth their price, and that his best bet is just selling everything to me for a gold piece. I don't want the GM to tell me that I accidentally offended his wife or his ancestors, and peed in the vase worth thousands of gold pieces. Neither of those makes sense for my character, but telling him he is a shit blacksmith is.

I think it's stupid saying what the roll makes the character do, because as everyone says, it removes agency. I tend to treat the roll as the reaction, not as the result if that makes sense. A DC20 check to impress a blacksmith where you roll a 3 is not you being a social retard, it's that this is Blacksmith Jimmy, the best blacksmith in the city and he gets this shit all the time and hes not impressed by the argument you gave. You can then salvage it by trying a different tack, or do what your character might do like insult his wares. I find it's much better that way.

It works the same with other checks. The DC tells you something about the target, not the character. A DC20 door, and your barbarian tries to knock it down, well it's a really damn strong door. If they roll poorly, it's because they expected the door to be weaker and they don't put as much force as they need. If they roll poorly for a DC10 door, they got unlucky and the door jammed somehow, but it's not that the character made an ass of themselves.

5% of the time?
It wasn't specified, OP only said failed constitution roll not but how much, but the worst roll happens 5% if the time in D&D. You don't break your keys 5% of the time you lock your door. Or fall to your ass 10% of the time you look for something in the rain.

What OP described it's shitty GM behavior.

> well, im God, so
She is not. She is an arbiter, a rule interpreter and a proxy between the world of the game and the players. The "GM is god" meme needs to die, nothing good emerges from this idea.

This is exactly why I hate critical fumbles. It also scales with number of attacks, a level 20 fighter is more likely to critical fumble than a level 1 one which is completely stupid.

Am I the only one who thinks OP is being a little bitch?

Falling over or throwing up isn't the GM "power playing your character". That's just your character losing control over their body. I don't care how much of a dark brooding badass your character is. This is an RPG, not a movie. Sometimes you're gonna fuck up and fail in an embarrassing way. Shit happens, that's life.

When OP says they've done "RP" before, I'm gonna assume that's just freeform dice-less/GM-less RP on furry forums or Minecraft or whatever. Real RPGs are different. The GM isn't a fucking moderator. Their job is to control the entire world around you, everything except for your character's mind. And yes, that includes your character's involuntary bodily functions. If you fail a fear roll and the GM says you shit your pants, you better learn to live with soiled panties.

Ok, some GMs have a more "collaborative" style. They might let you describe your own failures or successes. They might even let you invent and describe parts of the world. Other GMs might have a "negotiation" style, where you can have a discussion with the GM about what happens. There are RPGs designed around this style (Apocalypse World, FATE, etc.).

But the default assumption for any RPG (especially D&D!) is: the GM controls the entire world, the player only controls their character's conscious actions.

Yeah, that's something that happens in my game. For example, our fighter tried to break open a door by slamming with her hands, got a nat 20, and as we were laughing the DM said the door just burst apart to splinters.

It's better than what happens when there's a critical miss and it's embarrassing, but it still ruins my immersion when over-the-top stuff happens...

I try to write it off as it's her first time DMing and she's excited.

> throwing up isn't the GM "power playing your character". That's just your character losing control over their body.
Again, 5% of the time? FUCKING NO. It's complete bullshit to make a character throw up in an uncontrolled way 5% of the time they are on a boat (and that is assuming that the roll was a critical fumble and not a simple failed roll)

>The GM isn't a fucking moderator.
That's exactly what the GM is.

Yeah, I can get that. My character isn't even a badass or anything, we all make our PCs do dumbass shit of our own volition.

I feel like at some point it has to balance out with fun for the players, though, doesn't it? I like the balanced ideas that other anons have brought up (and that's why I'll just sit on this for now, and see how the rest of the campaign goes). If our DM literally made one of our characters shit their pant, I think all of us would be put off, on a "friends are playing this game for fun with each other" level.

Also, the puking was going to happen! I hoped it would, since it would be funny. It just irked that the DM wouldn't give me the freedom of where, hence asking about it here.

>the problem is I didn't get to choose where
Are you taking the piss? This is you having a hissy fit because you vomited on the floor instead of slightly to the right of the floor? Wise up.

Your character didn't want to throw up on the floor? So? He wasn't in control of his body at that moment. Do you even understand the concept of dice-based RPGs?

Who's having a hissy fit? I was asking what the general practice for how much control a DM gets, since my whole party is new to this. I got a lot of useful answers, and I'm glad for it.

You're a lot more riled up than you need to be.

sanity and fear tests are a thing, user. where's the difference to failing an endurance check and puking on yourself?

>D&D
>You don't break your keys 5% of the time you lock your door.
that's a simulationist argument applied to a primarily gamist system aka a fallacy. from a narrativist pov, critical failure/fumbles may even happen more frequently than 5% of the time - th PCs are the protagonists of a story after all and interesting things might happen to them more than that.

how often did indy crit in his travels? pretty sure it was way more than 5% of the time.

should a key break 5% of the time you lock your door? nah, that's shitty GMing. but they key could be lost or it could take at least 5 minutes for you to find the key, causing you to be late for a scene, etc

>It's complete bullshit to make a character throw up in an uncontrolled way 5% of the time they are on a boat
you're making two mistakes here:
#1:
>5% of the time they are on a boat
just because the test applies to one scene it doesn't mean it has to apply to every time they are on a boat. GM's are free to be inconsistent about that.
#2:
>make a character throw up
even if they were to test again next time on a boat, just because that was the consequence one time, it doesn't mean that has to be the consequence next time.

>n-no u r having da hissy fit
Embarrassing. You made a thread crying about how your DM made you slip once and vomit once. Both of which came from shit rolls and were entirely appropriate. Stop being such a child.

...

Thanks everyone for the feedback! it's helpful to see what kind of GM styles are out there for a novice like me. Next week I'll keep all this in mind as we play and see how it goes. Thanks for A+ helpful perspectives on both sides.

This is a good post. There are things in life you can't control, but you can control how you react to them. If it was the "I choose what happens to me" then I'm pretty sure most people, especially overly serious players, would try to be "cool" and godmode themselves.

As someone who suffers horrible motionsickness, I can attest to this. The only thing I can do is to have something prepared and hope I can use it before I vomit. Results include throwing up in my car, swallowing vomit, throwing up into my coffee cup, pulling over to the side of the road, having a bag handy, etc. The only difference between each time is how quickly I got sick, which dictated how I could react. I imagine throwing up in my car would be a 1 roll.

So are you just sensitive in general? If you're so experienced with RP, why not RP your way out of embarrassment?

As a general rule GM taking over characters is a big no-no user. Players get to decide what their characters do, not the GM.

New players are protective of their characters, so they're hyper sensitive about minor things. Throwing up isn't something you can plan out. If you roll low enough, it's just going to come out regardless of where you want it.

I would be interested in knowing some of these godmode events that happen yo the other characters, or if OP just focuses on herself.

Rolls decide whether character succeeds or fails, but the player gets to decide *how* they succeeded or failed. Simple as that.

>Rolls decide whether character succeeds or fails, but the player gets to decide *how* they succeeded or failed. Simple as that.
Except it isn't. That may be one particular style, but it's not one I see very often. With things that determine conscious behavior, sure. A failed negotiation roll shouldn't result in the GM dictating that the player starts using racial slurs or something. But other stuff is fine. Or at least it can be. There's no one proper way to GM.

>she
Found the problem.

>female DM
lmaoing at your life, kid.

Not just one, but four.

>Rolls decide whether character succeeds or fails, but the player gets to decide *how* they succeeded or failed. Simple as that.

I don't agree, most of the time it's "I try to jump and grab that ledge". *Roll*. Ok, you manage to grab the ledge, what now. There's no RP there, just success/failure.

When you attempt the action, you say what you wanna do and how you wanna do it. If you fail, it's like ok, you fail - here's the consequence. How do you salvage it? In the aforementioned ledge example, you jump and try and grab the ledge, but you miss. You're now falling through the air. What do you want to do now?

If you succeed, well the action you tried to do works exactly as you described it in the trying... The more detail you give when you attempt an action, the more likely a DM is to give you advantage etc. ;)

Soon we'll all be on the same cycle! Maybe it'll give us advantage.

>"you drop your weapon"
>minor details
But that isn't a minor detail. That directly impacts the actions you can or cannot take in your next turn, and the order in which they must be taken.

With the obvious exception of mind-affecting magic, in which case it can sometimes be reasonable for the DM to flat-out tell the player how the character reacts.

>that's a simulationist argument applied to a primarily gamist system aka a fallacy.
I mean, given that critical fumbles aren't a part of the rule system at all, that's not the case at all. The critical fumble behavior being argued against isn't part of the gamist system, but an addition made by the DM. Using the gamist system to point out how their addition breaks immersion isn't fallacious at all.

>After the initial studies, several papers were published reporting methodological flaws in studies reporting menstrual synchrony including McClintock's study. In addition, other studies were published that failed to find synchrony. The proposed mechanisms have also received scientific criticism. A 2013 review concluded that menstrual synchrony likely does not exist.
Sorry to burst your bubble.

its a joke user

Its a critical failure. If you don't think they should impact the game, you shouldn't use them.

He is obviously a player, so he doesn't have a say in the impact of critical failures, you cuckmaster.

It's a That DM problem.

I'm sorry you're having a difficult time OP. I don't think it's super bad though, but you should bring it up with her before she develops more bad habits.

As for my opinion on player agency and DM's control I think the DM should have more control over things that happen with the environment around the players after a fail/success while the players themselves have more control over what they are doing in the environment after a fail/success. I hope that makes sense.

While I do lile this approach, it should be used cautiously depending on your system. For something like a skill check were you have margins of success/failure, you pretty much have to ride with the GM, otherwise players will softball failures and over do it with successes.

underrated

...

Good post