The first DM discussion thread.(Current topic:Recruiting)

[Menvra]

Actually that is quite a good point. In our current quest Vincent sacrificed 10 hp to do a Burnout on a fight a few battles agao and he has been struggling with the effect ever since. So for pvp It should be limited to life points (in Vincent's case 8.) However in Actual dungeons it should be up to the dm whether he wants to allow it to be unlimited or linked to life value.

...and for those of you who aren't aware this is Kowsauni and I shall be using this account for all my dm posts from now on.  

[DM of Death]

Welcome to the club twisted  

[Master of Gladiators]

Alright. Thanks to Perrian, Kowsauni, FARGORE, Firu, Kowsauni as Menvra, and of course Vincent for your comments. Ultimately, I was hoping for this kind of response after my original post declaring the similarities with the Blood Dagger. I wasn't sure if the Demonic Sword had a true balance between it's positive and negative properties. Judging by the response, it seems to be well received as is. Therefore, I will make my final ruling as follows:

The Demonic Sword will retain all of it's properties as it was originally written. If any Guild Member wishes to challenge Vincent within a PvP battle, they are welcome to do so. However the Demonic Sword will carry no limitations other than those originally created.  

[FARGORE]

Sorry but I can’t really post tonight. I just got off of what was supposed to be a 12 hour guard shift (which is bad enough) that turned into a 13.5 hour guard shift. That extra 1.5 hours was all in my free time and I have a big 3.5 hour test tomorrow so I need some extra sleep. crying
I’m sooooo soooowwrrrry crying  

[Menvra]

No problem we all have busy days. This is my finals week so you might be seeing less of me too.  

[l.a.v.]

it's ok Fargore, we heart you anyway.
We'll just kick yer butt over it when aren't quite so tired... wink

Sorry I didn't post earlier; I put in my two cents with Gladiators privately, but was essentially in agreement with Kail over the whole thing. Personally I would never want to use the Demonic sword at all with the limitations its got on it - I would be looking for a way to get rid of it from the get go. Additional penalties for having to use the thing would probably make my head implode. So again, redundant, but I agree that it should be left alone.  

[DM of Death]

ok, so after the argument in "Master Morty's Wagon Train," I've been trying to come up with a way to make sure issues like that don't arise anymore.

I would suggest that any such "House Rules" that you would like to use, should be thouroghly explained Previous to the dungeon starting. This way, when the situation comes up, it won't shock, or potentially upset, characters.

as an example, I have put up a "House rules" section in my quests Thread, and have introduced my "Surprise Round" House rule as follows...

-=Surprise Round=-
If, under special circumstances, you get the "Drop" on your enemies, I will roll a dice for each monster. Even means they act as normal, odd means they have to wait a turn to act. This does not work on Bosses.

For example...

The party, being chased by goblins, runs into an old barn. They bar the door quickly and they come up with the idea to hide in the rafters to surprise the goblins after they break the door down. The goblins then break down the door and rush inside. The players then jump down and attack.
I would then roll a dice to see which goblins would be able to act, and which wouldn't.

*NOTE! This counts for the players too, but you all will have a 75% chance of success, rather then 50%. Also, when surprising enemies, you may not be able to accurately assess there numbers, so don't jump into something your unsure of!*

This way, not only will the characters not be upset over the rules being sprug on them last minute, but it will allow them to take advantage of them as well!

What does everyone else think?  

[Menvra]

Sounds like a plan to me.  

[l.a.v.]

I think it is an excellent suggestion Death and would like to see it implemented; however I don't think the issue at hand is really that a player was upset by a freakish ruling. From my point of observation, the true issue is the manner in which the player acted upon that feeling, and the dungeon master's response to it. In a word: this situation was abysmally handled.

I would like to establish some kind of guidelines dictating what acceptable conduct in a thread is, and just to what extent a DM has control over his thread. It was my understanding that a full-fledged DM has near-absolute authority within his own dungeon; if that is not the case, it needs to be made clear so that all know their place. On the surface, there can be no question as to the limits of a DM's authority, or the game will dissolve into a mass of pointless bickering as aggressive players jockey for a more advantageous position and the passive players get caught in the crossfire. Rules may be contested, but ultimately the DM's ruling must stand; this is a point I support on principle even under the most obnoxious of DM's. I can tell you now, the crap that was pulled in that thread would never fly in a live game.

Without a clearly defined chain of command, this guild will fall apart. I don't know about you, but I personally have better things to do than listen to/be involved in arguments, especially ones that leave me feeling unappreciated and reviled when I'm supposed to be having fun. I know that if there aren't any now, there will be others who share my sentiment. The argument may not have involved me directly, but I noticed a lot of nasty barbs thrown in those posts, and if you absolutely MUST have examples, you can PM me for them. Harsh treatment for a dungeon master, who puts in more time and energy on these things than any player. Especially the DM in question, who spends more time on the computer writing quests than he does with me, due to how much he cares about this guild.

My personal feeling is that a DM, no matter how stupid or brilliant his ruling, should never be publicly disrespected. It undermines his authority as a dungeon master and makes it hard for him to keep order in his "court" as it were. Issues with a DM's ruling should be brought up by PM ONLY. If a DM is challenged in public, he has little choice but to respond publicly as he is now responsible to everyone reading the post, not just the one who posted it.

Either players need to be made responsible for their own actions and words, or the DM needs to be given absolute power. It is vastly unfair to double-punish the DM and reward a player for being publicly disruptive.  

[Firu Nicorusu]

I also think Death has a good idea there. And I agree with I.a.v. that conduct that is disruptive to the tranquility of the game should not be made public. If you have a problem with someone or something have the comond sence and dignity to keep in between you and the person responsible. After all this isn't the Jerry Springer show.  

[FARGORE]

I also agree with you LAV. But I think this would be for the best.

Rule: If a DM makes a ruling that you believe is unfair (against you or someone else) you are under no circumstances to bring that ruling to the attention of the DM themselves. You are to PM the next level of DM and ask them to make a ruling threw PM. The DM’s whose ruling is in question will be PMd by the higher DM with a ruling. The higher DM will then also respond to the player as to his ruling. If the player still believes that the rulings are unfair then they can take it to the next higher level. If the ruling of a Major DM is questioned as unfair then a DM thread will be made and all DM’s will vote to decide a ruling, this ruling is absolute and cannot be put into question even by a major DM. The higher DM will not reveal the identity of the player who asked for a ruling. All issues involving rulings will be henceforth kept in PM. If a Minor DM or higher sees a rulings question brought up in a thread they will delete it.

I wish a rule like this did not have to exist, but it does. So here it is. Any questions, comments or concerns. And take note that this rule means that even I can be overridden by a majority rule on DM vote.  

[l.a.v.]

Fargore: May I suggest something regarding this new rule? I think it might be a good idea if the ruling in question was discussed with the affect DM, however briefly, prior to making the final decision. While it may not affect the outcome of the final ruling, it may bring to light some underlying cause or principle that should be further investigated. There's usually a reason for these things, and it might be something we should look into further. There's no reason we can't talk about it, after all. It just shouldn't devolve into a public shouting match.  

[Firu Nicorusu]

In any event the next lvl DM should at least ask the DM who is being disputed why they chose to rule the way they did. At the verry least to make sure the incident was not sparked by a miscalculation or misunderstanding or the rules.  

[Master of Gladiators]

I appreciate everyone's concern and/or comments on the issue within both comment threads; your opinions do matter. For the record, I have been in communication with FARGORE, and we have been discussing the reasoning behind the trigger issue. I fully support FARGORE's ruling, and also agree with Death's potential solution to prevent future mix-ups as well. The final ruling should be soon posted within the Wagon thread; I hope it is found acceptable to all parties. And I do apologize to the Guild as a whole for any conduct upon my part that may have affected your experience within this Guild. It was not my intention to interfere with the most basic premise of this Guild; to have fun. Hopefully, I will be allowed to prove my case by finishing this Dungeon as it was originally written; with the surprise twist at the end.  

[Menvra]

I too would like to repeat my apology for my part in the incident. I really do enjoy rping with Master of Gladiators. I think we both just caught each other at a bad time IRL. Again I apologies and wish to finish the dungeon as Master of Gladiators originally had intended. I trust that in the end he has the best interests for all our characters in mind.