On new DMs: I never actually played 3-5 years….. I basically played in a few games, bought the 1st Edition DMG and been DMing ever since… Maybe I am too hard on new DMs because I don’t actually know HOW to be a player anymore so I just judge based on my experience as a DM…

On Rules Lawyering: We don’t do it much anymore since we know the rules so well… but we have a ‘make your case rapidly, abide to DM’s call, appeal between games and agree on a set ruling for the next time’ strategy that works fine for us… but then again, our mutual trust levels is high. (After playing with some of my players for more than 20 years… it’s to be expected)

I like to play, and I have no issues about just trusting the DM blindly, people want to do well. Normally I’ll play a one on one game with a new DM, it’s never a good game, but it is fun because it’s still D&D.

Rules Lawyering, I play an ultra realistic world that takes place on a world that is very close to our own . . . only, you know . . . more exciting. My history is good, however when you’re dealing with a group of history geeks somebody is going to know a little fact that you as the DM aren’t aware of, and sometimes it just doesn’t fit in with your evil plans. My personal rule is that THE STORY WILL BE SERVED ABOVE ALL ELSE!!! But about rules themselves, prior to any encounter where rules are iffy at best, I first describe them and let the players know how we are going to handle this situation. If anybody complains, I listen to them and to their ideas. If they would work better without upsetting the junk that I wrote, or my own strategy, then I’ll use that system instead. However, if I already spent long enough prepping the scene, or if the system that they want to use is just unreasonable (they only got to role for one or two characters, the DM has much more), or if the rules lawyer is always pulling this stuff on a regular basis, then I’ll explain to them that this is the system that I’ve chosen already, and tell them exactly why. Just don’t take to long because the other players want to get this thing going.

-RIP

Trust in GM vs trust in game (this post is an excellent on on the subject)
GM authority
Conflict Resolution.

I’m a conflict adverse person (especially online) so I’m not sure I could tackle the last in a satisfactory manner.

But I’ll definitively consider the other two.

I have some authority due to being someone who has roleplayed a lot (when compared to some other players). It does not apply to all players, though. All situational.

That said, I’m most likely to be too passive; one campaign shut down when people brought their OOC rivalries into the game and gamed their point of view to justify radical conflict within the group. [Which would have been OK in some games, but not a party style game, as we were playing.]

But as you note on your blog, new DMs are hard to come by and the hobby attracts a lot of introverted people. If we wish to foster more DM/GMs, I think we need to give new DMs more trust/respect than what we instinctively grant and cut them some slack long enough for them to settle in their new role (With some guidance to steer them away from the pitfalls of BAD GMing). I know I have been merciless with my fellow players that have tried the chair… and I probably shouldn’t have.

@Lanir: I think that players don’t want it easy, it’s also boring for them, but they want it ‘possible’. I think they hate a scene where they are pre-destined to fail unless they know in advance it’s hopeless.

But powerlessness in a scenario is definitively on a player’s hate list. You need a very satisfactory release of that frustration in a short time period to pull it off…. but then again it always depends on your own group dynamics.

Some group like it more grim than what we do.

An easy mop-up fight once in a while makes your butt kickers and tacticians happy.

When I run games myself I tend to run into trust issues at times. There are two basic occasions when this happens. First off, sometimes people get really rulesy on me and by that I mean they’re downright rules lawyerish. This can be hard to deal with at times especially if they’re taking a grey area of the rules and looking at it with rose colored glasses, insisting that their interpretation is the only way. Even if I agree with them at this point it often feels like I lost the trust of the player to some static words in a book (that almost certainly tells me in some other part to not be bound by what the book itself says and just run a fun game). Or maybe never had it to begin with.

The second thing is a plot device I like to use. In my games there are things that can outperform the PCs. I don’t mind giving them a bloody nose once in exchange for a much more satisfying PC victory down the line. Unfortunately that requires my players to trust me through one conflict where the enemy acquits themselves well and that’s not always a possibility.

I have some ideas for both of these but haven’t run anything in awhile so I haven’t put them into practice yet. Basically I resolved to answer rules questions as they come up in games and not so much between games unless they involve the fundamental workings of the game. I’m going to try and throw some more fluff encounters at my groups as well. I think some of them just want fights that are an easy mop-up at times. I’ll have to experiment with that, don’t want to make it too easy, might get boring.

I’m not inclined to put a lot of faith in a GM who is shy. I’m just not. They may make the most beautiful maps and think of the most clever plotlines and the weirdest campaign settings, but first and foremost a GM is a storyteller and a referee, and that requires a certain amount of… Charisma.

Also, I’m more inclined to trust someone more experienced with… life. A forty year old GM who learned about D&D in the army will garner a lot more starting trust and faith than a freshman in college who learned about Rifts his senior year of high school.

Remember, granting the GM authority never prevents them from waiving that authority (and going to a player, or even the whole group, for a ruling). It just allows them to use it when needed.

And more to the point, it means that when the GM does exercise his authority and make a ruling, there will usually be little disagreement.

But a GM can only use his authority to the point that the players allow him. Your GM tends to defer his authority, which is fine, and means he will rarely overstep his bounds. When a GM tries to exercise authority that the players haven’t granted him, well, that’s when we get into the issue of trust.

It’s not uncommon for a GM to be overruled in our games.

However, I freely confess that this style might be somewhat unusual, and it probably only works with players that have been together for quite some time.