Not to be Colville spammer, but Matt Colville just came out with this, it's short.
I don't think DMs have alignments. We're all tools. Some of us are the pejorative sense of tool, but I think most of us try to ... I"m not sure what the best word is. I want to say facilitate, but that word is too tied up with "ease" and "easiness" that I'm not sure it's right. But something more instrumental than confrontational is the bearing I'm trying to lean toward.
Really alignment is only useful in deterring oppositional dynamics. And as the video puts it, the DM ideally should be on the players' side. I guess if I must, a DM who looks out for and maintains the players interests through knowing when to govern by a rule system or let creativity come into play, a good DM is Neutral Good.
Not to be Colville spammer, but Matt Colville just came out with this, it's short.
I don't think DMs have alignments. We're all tools. Some of us are the pejorative sense of tool, but I think most of us try to ... I"m not sure what the best word is. I want to say facilitate, but that word is too tied up with "ease" and "easiness" that I'm not sure it's right. But something more instrumental than confrontational is the bearing I'm trying to lean toward.
Really alignment is only useful in deterring oppositional dynamics. And as the video puts it, the DM ideally should be on the players' side. I guess if I must, a DM who looks out for and maintains the players interests through knowing when to govern by a rule system or let creativity come into play, a good DM is Neutral Good.
I don't think every game has to be the same. While I think most tables benefit from a DM as you describe, there are other play styles that are suited to a different kind of DM.
I'd actually describe Matt Colville's style as true Neutral. He's willing to TPK his party if the decisions the players make lead them to that. At the extreme, a "Good" DM will never let their players lose. That's an appropriate style of play for players who want more of an interactive story, with little game element to it.
An extreme Lawful DM is appropriate to a table where every last player is a rules lawyer, and loves it. If the session devolves into an hour of quoting chapter and verse from the Player's Handbook and Dungeon Master's Guide, and arguing over whether precedent from previous editions is applicable, that's a good session in their minds. Another player suited to a lawful DM is the powergamer. They get their kicks from finding loopholes in the rules to exploit for some incredibly powerful combo or creative use of abilities to render a Tarrasque harmless.
Extreme Chaotic DMs can be found leading "beer and pretzels" tables where the players are just there for wisecracks and social interaction, and the game is little more than a background setting. These DMs are more about creating off-the-wall NPCs than worrying about any rules. They probably don't care that advantage doesn't stack, and natural 20s are automatic successes on ability checks, because it's a chance to narrate how a PC accomplishes an impossible task with unbelievable feats.
And even Lawful Evil DMs might have a home. There might be players out there who really relish the challenge of beating the DM. As long as the DM plays by the rules and either uses a published adventure or creates combats according to the guidelines for the adventuring day, they want the DM to bring it on with the most brutal tactical choices for the monsters, and if they lose, it was well-played by the DM. But if they win, they feel like it was really an accomplishment.
It is not a good session until at least one of the players looks at me and says ... "You sick, twisted, evil (epithet of choice goes here)."
Not sure where that puts me on the spectrum.
While this was my "Flip" intended as levity answer it isnt too far off the mark.
While I do want the players to "win." I want it to be as entertaining as possible before they get to that point. And I want them to feel as if they earned that check in the W column. So I use every devious plot device, twist, and trope I can think of at them and ratchet up the difficulty to just beyond what they think they can handle. (and sometimes past what I am sure they can handle). And as flippant as my first remark was they often do say that phrase in the heat of the moment. But they always leave with a huge grin and come back the next week for more of the same.
Not to be Colville spammer, but Matt Colville just came out with this, it's short.
I don't think DMs have alignments. We're all tools. Some of us are the pejorative sense of tool, but I think most of us try to ... I"m not sure what the best word is. I want to say facilitate, but that word is too tied up with "ease" and "easiness" that I'm not sure it's right. But something more instrumental than confrontational is the bearing I'm trying to lean toward.
Really alignment is only useful in deterring oppositional dynamics. And as the video puts it, the DM ideally should be on the players' side. I guess if I must, a DM who looks out for and maintains the players interests through knowing when to govern by a rule system or let creativity come into play, a good DM is Neutral Good.
I don't think every game has to be the same. While I think most tables benefit from a DM as you describe, there are other play styles that are suited to a different kind of DM.
I'd actually describe Matt Colville's style as true Neutral. He's willing to TPK his party if the decisions the players make lead them to that. At the extreme, a "Good" DM will never let their players lose. That's an appropriate style of play for players who want more of an interactive story, with little game element to it.
An extreme Lawful DM is appropriate to a table where every last player is a rules lawyer, and loves it. If the session devolves into an hour of quoting chapter and verse from the Player's Handbook and Dungeon Master's Guide, and arguing over whether precedent from previous editions is applicable, that's a good session in their minds. Another player suited to a lawful DM is the powergamer. They get their kicks from finding loopholes in the rules to exploit for some incredibly powerful combo or creative use of abilities to render a Tarrasque harmless.
Extreme Chaotic DMs can be found leading "beer and pretzels" tables where the players are just there for wisecracks and social interaction, and the game is little more than a background setting. These DMs are more about creating off-the-wall NPCs than worrying about any rules. They probably don't care that advantage doesn't stack, and natural 20s are automatic successes on ability checks, because it's a chance to narrate how a PC accomplishes an impossible task with unbelievable feats.
And even Lawful Evil DMs might have a home. There might be players out there who really relish the challenge of beating the DM. As long as the DM plays by the rules and either uses a published adventure or creates combats according to the guidelines for the adventuring day, they want the DM to bring it on with the most brutal tactical choices for the monsters, and if they lose, it was well-played by the DM. But if they win, they feel like it was really an accomplishment.
I don't think these styles are really exceptions to the overall principles set out in the vid. The DM is there to give space for whatever spirit of game the players find fun, be it rules lawyer, beer and pretzel games or meat grinders. I'd say the DM is best aligned with "fun."
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Jander Sunstar is the thinking person's Drizzt, fight me.
Not to be Colville spammer, but Matt Colville just came out with this, it's short.
I don't think DMs have alignments. We're all tools. Some of us are the pejorative sense of tool, but I think most of us try to ... I"m not sure what the best word is. I want to say facilitate, but that word is too tied up with "ease" and "easiness" that I'm not sure it's right. But something more instrumental than confrontational is the bearing I'm trying to lean toward.
Really alignment is only useful in deterring oppositional dynamics. And as the video puts it, the DM ideally should be on the players' side. I guess if I must, a DM who looks out for and maintains the players interests through knowing when to govern by a rule system or let creativity come into play, a good DM is Neutral Good.
I don't think every game has to be the same. While I think most tables benefit from a DM as you describe, there are other play styles that are suited to a different kind of DM.
I'd actually describe Matt Colville's style as true Neutral. He's willing to TPK his party if the decisions the players make lead them to that. At the extreme, a "Good" DM will never let their players lose. That's an appropriate style of play for players who want more of an interactive story, with little game element to it.
An extreme Lawful DM is appropriate to a table where every last player is a rules lawyer, and loves it. If the session devolves into an hour of quoting chapter and verse from the Player's Handbook and Dungeon Master's Guide, and arguing over whether precedent from previous editions is applicable, that's a good session in their minds. Another player suited to a lawful DM is the powergamer. They get their kicks from finding loopholes in the rules to exploit for some incredibly powerful combo or creative use of abilities to render a Tarrasque harmless.
Extreme Chaotic DMs can be found leading "beer and pretzels" tables where the players are just there for wisecracks and social interaction, and the game is little more than a background setting. These DMs are more about creating off-the-wall NPCs than worrying about any rules. They probably don't care that advantage doesn't stack, and natural 20s are automatic successes on ability checks, because it's a chance to narrate how a PC accomplishes an impossible task with unbelievable feats.
And even Lawful Evil DMs might have a home. There might be players out there who really relish the challenge of beating the DM. As long as the DM plays by the rules and either uses a published adventure or creates combats according to the guidelines for the adventuring day, they want the DM to bring it on with the most brutal tactical choices for the monsters, and if they lose, it was well-played by the DM. But if they win, they feel like it was really an accomplishment.
I don't think these styles are really exceptions to the overall principles set out in the vid. The DM is there to give space for whatever spirit of game the players find fun, be it rules lawyer, beer and pretzel games or meat grinders. I'd say the DM is best aligned with "fun."
Confession: I didn't watch the video before I replied. I was replying to your comments, not the video.
Interestingly, Matt says in the video that the DM should be neutral and has to conform to the rules. That would actually peg him as Lawful Neutral. But I don't think he's on the extreme end of Lawful, in that I know he's pretty fond of house rules. I don't think any of the above styles contradict the basic premise of, "The DM is on the players side." But they do vary, which is what I'm trying to capture with the concept of DM alignment.
"The DM is on the PC's side," is certainly not true for confrontational (a.k.a. Evil) DMs, although the DM is on the players' side, if a competitive game is what the players are looking for.
"The DM should be neutral," doesn't really apply to Good DMs, who are likely to fudge rolls or at least play the monsters a little on the dumb side if the players are losing a combat.
And obviously, "The DM should conform to the rules," is out the window for Chaotic DMs, who might have an owlbear fart and fling the players across the planes, because they all thought it was hilarious.
Hm. In terms of Coville's video, I wouldn't say it's entirely true (if you surprise the DM by going down an unexpected path, it's possible he didn't think about that path and didn't put opposition there), but it's mostly true, because
Surprising the DM generally slows down the game as he has to figure out what would happen.
Sometimes the easiest way to handle unexpected side paths is to just put death down them.
I’m pretty sure I’m LG. I like to stick with the rules, but I tend to try to avoid TPKs and make the game as fun as possible. Then again, it could just be my approach because my player is on their first campaign, and I want to make it fun for them. We’ll see what happens with their second set of characters…
I'm really not sure that i could be characterized as any one alignment as DM. I've killed characters off because the player was annoying, in my defense that was 30 years ago, though. Lately I've just tried to facilitate the fun my players wanted to have and we just wrapped up a year long campaign last sunday. One year of DnD every weekend with the same group of players.
My wife is ecstatic that I'll be available to go grocery shopping with her again on sundays (sad trombone noises.)
I started that campaign because I wanted to learn fifth edition, and it's certainly been an education. I'd probably help a younger DM in the wild, but only if they actually wanted my help, I'd hate to seem like I was undermining them. So I guess I'm some kind of Chaotic Good (-ish) DM. For now, I'm taking a break from the DM chair and letting a player set up a campaign they've been wanting to run, this will be my first time as a player in 33 years! My second edition AD&D Cleric was a long time ago! Heh, I still have that character sheet around here somewhere...
oh. my. god. am I that old hoarder DM with a bookcase full of rpg supplements and old character sheets? (Darth Vader NOOOOOO)
As a DM I'd say I'm lawful neutral to the characters, as I don't give plot armor, am to my rules and am overall neutral in whatever happens.
As a DM to my players out of game I'm lawful good. To my DMing rules and well nice to the players (obviously) I allow home-brew if I think it fits the setting, and if it's balanced.
As a IRL person I'm either chaotic good, or chaotic neutral.
Not to be Colville spammer, but Matt Colville just came out with this, it's short.
I don't think DMs have alignments. We're all tools. Some of us are the pejorative sense of tool, but I think most of us try to ... I"m not sure what the best word is. I want to say facilitate, but that word is too tied up with "ease" and "easiness" that I'm not sure it's right. But something more instrumental than confrontational is the bearing I'm trying to lean toward.
Really alignment is only useful in deterring oppositional dynamics. And as the video puts it, the DM ideally should be on the players' side. I guess if I must, a DM who looks out for and maintains the players interests through knowing when to govern by a rule system or let creativity come into play, a good DM is Neutral Good.
There's a difference between being on the players' side and being on the PCs' side.
All stars fade. Some stars forever fall. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Homebrew (Mostly Outdated):Magic Items,Monsters,Spells,Subclasses ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- If there was no light, people wouldn't fear the dark.
Never thought about my alignment as a DM... I suppose true neutral, which oddly is where I find myself in life. I try to treat my players equitably, but have no problem punishing them or rewarding them as game play dictates.
I am Lawful Neutral because I generally stick to the rules as much as I can because if you stray to far from them, it causes chaos and unfairness. Nobody likes biased DMs and if you overly change the rules it’s not D&D any more.
I am Lawful Neutral because I generally stick to the rules as much as I can because if you stray to far from them, it causes chaos and unfairness. Nobody likes biased DMs and if you overly change the rules it’s not D&D any more.
Truly the words of a lawful neutral. Disdain for chaotic non-neutrality.
Neutral Drunkard. My goal, and the goal of my players, is to have FUN. If I've had a rough day/week, I'll tip back a couple to loosen up. No reason to take my ill mood out on my players.
I wouldn't be suprised if was lawful evil, I always try to make sure everybody has a good time but i'm not above giving them all consequences for losing a fight or doing something stupid.
i also will avoid certain races but it's just aarackocra and the "new fairy" because of the flying speeds, also no optional race ability score allocation
these are all a style but it might be a bit "new player centric"
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
Not to be Colville spammer, but Matt Colville just came out with this, it's short.
I don't think DMs have alignments. We're all tools. Some of us are the pejorative sense of tool, but I think most of us try to ... I"m not sure what the best word is. I want to say facilitate, but that word is too tied up with "ease" and "easiness" that I'm not sure it's right. But something more instrumental than confrontational is the bearing I'm trying to lean toward.
Really alignment is only useful in deterring oppositional dynamics. And as the video puts it, the DM ideally should be on the players' side. I guess if I must, a DM who looks out for and maintains the players interests through knowing when to govern by a rule system or let creativity come into play, a good DM is Neutral Good.
Jander Sunstar is the thinking person's Drizzt, fight me.
I create loveable npcs for the party to get attached to and then get them killed by the bbeg. Chaotic Evil Dm
my name is not Bryce
Actor
Certified Dark Sun enjoyer
usually on forum games and not contributing to conversations ¯\_ (ツ)_/
For every user who writes 5 paragraph essays as each of their posts: Remember to touch grass occasionally
I don't think every game has to be the same. While I think most tables benefit from a DM as you describe, there are other play styles that are suited to a different kind of DM.
I'd actually describe Matt Colville's style as true Neutral. He's willing to TPK his party if the decisions the players make lead them to that. At the extreme, a "Good" DM will never let their players lose. That's an appropriate style of play for players who want more of an interactive story, with little game element to it.
An extreme Lawful DM is appropriate to a table where every last player is a rules lawyer, and loves it. If the session devolves into an hour of quoting chapter and verse from the Player's Handbook and Dungeon Master's Guide, and arguing over whether precedent from previous editions is applicable, that's a good session in their minds. Another player suited to a lawful DM is the powergamer. They get their kicks from finding loopholes in the rules to exploit for some incredibly powerful combo or creative use of abilities to render a Tarrasque harmless.
Extreme Chaotic DMs can be found leading "beer and pretzels" tables where the players are just there for wisecracks and social interaction, and the game is little more than a background setting. These DMs are more about creating off-the-wall NPCs than worrying about any rules. They probably don't care that advantage doesn't stack, and natural 20s are automatic successes on ability checks, because it's a chance to narrate how a PC accomplishes an impossible task with unbelievable feats.
And even Lawful Evil DMs might have a home. There might be players out there who really relish the challenge of beating the DM. As long as the DM plays by the rules and either uses a published adventure or creates combats according to the guidelines for the adventuring day, they want the DM to bring it on with the most brutal tactical choices for the monsters, and if they lose, it was well-played by the DM. But if they win, they feel like it was really an accomplishment.
While this was my "Flip" intended as levity answer it isnt too far off the mark.
While I do want the players to "win."
I want it to be as entertaining as possible before they get to that point.
And I want them to feel as if they earned that check in the W column.
So I use every devious plot device, twist, and trope I can think of at them and ratchet up the difficulty to just beyond what they think they can handle. (and sometimes past what I am sure they can handle).
And as flippant as my first remark was they often do say that phrase in the heat of the moment. But they always leave with a huge grin and come back the next week for more of the same.
I don't think these styles are really exceptions to the overall principles set out in the vid. The DM is there to give space for whatever spirit of game the players find fun, be it rules lawyer, beer and pretzel games or meat grinders. I'd say the DM is best aligned with "fun."
Jander Sunstar is the thinking person's Drizzt, fight me.
Confession: I didn't watch the video before I replied. I was replying to your comments, not the video.
Interestingly, Matt says in the video that the DM should be neutral and has to conform to the rules. That would actually peg him as Lawful Neutral. But I don't think he's on the extreme end of Lawful, in that I know he's pretty fond of house rules. I don't think any of the above styles contradict the basic premise of, "The DM is on the players side." But they do vary, which is what I'm trying to capture with the concept of DM alignment.
"The DM is on the PC's side," is certainly not true for confrontational (a.k.a. Evil) DMs, although the DM is on the players' side, if a competitive game is what the players are looking for.
"The DM should be neutral," doesn't really apply to Good DMs, who are likely to fudge rolls or at least play the monsters a little on the dumb side if the players are losing a combat.
And obviously, "The DM should conform to the rules," is out the window for Chaotic DMs, who might have an owlbear fart and fling the players across the planes, because they all thought it was hilarious.
Hm. In terms of Coville's video, I wouldn't say it's entirely true (if you surprise the DM by going down an unexpected path, it's possible he didn't think about that path and didn't put opposition there), but it's mostly true, because
I’m pretty sure I’m LG. I like to stick with the rules, but I tend to try to avoid TPKs and make the game as fun as possible. Then again, it could just be my approach because my player is on their first campaign, and I want to make it fun for them. We’ll see what happens with their second set of characters…
Only spilt the party if you see something shiny.
Ariendela Sneakerson, Half-elf Rogue (8); Harmony Wolfsbane, Tiefling Bard (10); Agnomally, Gnomish Sorcerer (3); Breeze, Tabaxi Monk (8); Grace, Dragonborn Barbarian (7); DM, Homebrew- The Sequestered Lands/Underwater Explorers; Candlekeep
I'm really not sure that i could be characterized as any one alignment as DM. I've killed characters off because the player was annoying, in my defense that was 30 years ago, though. Lately I've just tried to facilitate the fun my players wanted to have and we just wrapped up a year long campaign last sunday. One year of DnD every weekend with the same group of players.
My wife is ecstatic that I'll be available to go grocery shopping with her again on sundays (sad trombone noises.)
I started that campaign because I wanted to learn fifth edition, and it's certainly been an education. I'd probably help a younger DM in the wild, but only if they actually wanted my help, I'd hate to seem like I was undermining them. So I guess I'm some kind of Chaotic Good (-ish) DM. For now, I'm taking a break from the DM chair and letting a player set up a campaign they've been wanting to run, this will be my first time as a player in 33 years! My second edition AD&D Cleric was a long time ago! Heh, I still have that character sheet around here somewhere...
oh. my. god. am I that old hoarder DM with a bookcase full of rpg supplements and old character sheets? (Darth Vader NOOOOOO)
From one DM/Player from the 70s to another...
nothing wrong with that; brother.
As a DM I'd say I'm lawful neutral to the characters, as I don't give plot armor, am to my rules and am overall neutral in whatever happens.
As a DM to my players out of game I'm lawful good. To my DMing rules and well nice to the players (obviously) I allow home-brew if I think it fits the setting, and if it's balanced.
As a IRL person I'm either chaotic good, or chaotic neutral.
It’s nice to see there’s a few of us left :)
There's a difference between being on the players' side and being on the PCs' side.
All stars fade. Some stars forever fall.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Homebrew (Mostly Outdated): Magic Items, Monsters, Spells, Subclasses
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
If there was no light, people wouldn't fear the dark.
Never thought about my alignment as a DM... I suppose true neutral, which oddly is where I find myself in life. I try to treat my players equitably, but have no problem punishing them or rewarding them as game play dictates.
~ May all your rolls Crit ~
I am Lawful Neutral because I generally stick to the rules as much as I can because if you stray to far from them, it causes chaos and unfairness. Nobody likes biased DMs and if you overly change the rules it’s not D&D any more.
Truly the words of a lawful neutral. Disdain for chaotic non-neutrality.
Neutral Drunkard. My goal, and the goal of my players, is to have FUN. If I've had a rough day/week, I'll tip back a couple to loosen up. No reason to take my ill mood out on my players.
I'm a pretty new DM and I barely prepare anything, so probably Chaotic Neutral.
I wouldn't be suprised if was lawful evil, I always try to make sure everybody has a good time but i'm not above giving them all consequences for losing a fight or doing something stupid.
i also will avoid certain races but it's just aarackocra and the "new fairy" because of the flying speeds, also no optional race ability score allocation
these are all a style but it might be a bit "new player centric"