I would venture to guess that perhaps 5%
of all AD&D® game players actually follow
all the rules, use only officially approved
character classes, and permit only sensible,
balanced magical items in their campaigns.
Actually, the figure should be more like 2%,
if that?s not too high, and they are probably
members of the group that I call the ?letter
of the law bunch,? about which I?ll say
more later.

I should know. I?ve played in every type
of game from those run by Monty Hauls,
where a 1st-level character can come back
with 10,000 gp and 6 magic items after
stomping on 12 orcs, to campaigns in
which the Dungeon Master was so stingy
that it was a red-letter day when the party
came back from a fight against hundreds of
monsters (literally!) with 1,000 gp and a
ring of water walking! I?ve also refereed
both styles and many in between. I don?t
feel guilty about any of this. At the time
each game was played, it was the style with
which I felt most comfortable.

I?ve noticed that almost all people who
become good DMs go through at least three
distinct stages in their development. It?s a
safe bet that, if a DM has been running a
Monty Haul campaign for a long while, he
is not developing his skills. Rather, he is
probably stagnating as a DM. As with all
?rules,? this one has its exceptions, but it is
accurate enough.

These three stages of development are
discussed below, with a couple of examples
from my own experiences as a DM.
 

Stage 1: This is the "Monty Haul" campaign.
The novice DM is frequently so
worried about keeping his players happy
with the game that other methods of accomplishing
this end do not occur to him. Instead,
he takes the most obvious route of
supplying tons of treasure, scores of magic
items, and easy ways to advance in level
and in skills to hold the players? interest.
The new DM has usually not realized that
the main attraction of AD&D gaming is not
necessarily the collection of gobs of goodies
for relatively minor accomplishments. If
you or your DM utilize this style now,
don?t lose heart. Three of the best DMs I?ve
ever gamed with began with this style.
 

Stage 2: This step begins with the realization
that the campaign has gotten out of
hand.  The characters can buy and sell most
kingdoms before breakfast.  They can walk
up to Odin, kick him in the shins, and get
away with it.  They've killed off all the
archdevils and demon princes, and they are
starting on the deities, beginning with the
first page of the Deities & Demigods volume.
("Hey, George, we get Bast next time! I?ve
been waiting to get even with her!")

The DM reasons, "I must be doing this
all wrong." There quickly ensues a sudden
180-degree change of course to strict adherence
to The Rules. DMs of this sort are the
ones I call the ?letter of the law bunch.?
Their creed is: ?If it ain't in The Books, it
ain?t so!? They regard the written word as
a set of Holy Laws, and death to the infidel!
Fortunately, this stage is generally shortlived
and ends quite abruptly, either with all
the players quitting in disgust (?What do
you mean, I?ve got to add in my weapon
speed? My cleric?s been trying to swing his
mace for the past ten minutes!?) or with the
DM losing his cool at the countless times
he?s consulted tables and made die rolls.
This latter stage is frequently achieved amid
loud and often profane screams of frustration
and anger, usually accompanied by
endless sheets of paper sent flying through
the air like so many weird, rectangular
butterflies.
 

Stage 3: This is what I call the ?normal?
style of refereeing, as it is by far the most
common style and is the easiest to referee.
It is a blend of the official AD&D rules, the
individual DM?s unofficial rules, and common
sense. While this method will usually
not be seen in official tournament play, it is
the form most frequently found in the average
neighborhood get-together. Since it
doesn?t require constant reference to the
many tables, it permits smoothness and
speed of play, as well as allowing the DM to
insert his own results, should he feel it
necessary.

A DM using the "normal" method still
needs a solid grounding in the actual rules
of the game, but he is no longer bound by
the inflexible results of a die. Provided the
DM?s altered results do not unbalance the
campaign, and are consistent with its goals,
he can feel free to reward or punish the
characters? actions without making a die
roll. He must still remember that no one
appreciates a DM who plays favorites, is
inconsistent, or who makes decisions without
regard to balance or merit.

I've made off-the-cuff rulings in both
directions at times.  Once I killed a character
by altering a die roll.  The player had
shown total disregard for the rules, altered
his character's ability scores, and cheated
on his die rolls (come on, no one rolls 19's
and 20's twelve times in a row!). He was
rude to the other players, disregarded his
character?s alignment when it suited him,
and was generally a pain in the neck. But
my dice were as idiotic as he was; they
refused to give a result that would legally
allow me to cream his character, so I arbitrarily
killed his character within the framework
of the scenario.
On the other side of the coin, one poor
young paladin of my acquaintance had done
everything right and had worked hard at it.
He gave half of his winnings to the church
or the poor. If this fellow had 3 hp left and a
party member was in trouble, he dove in to
help, usually managing to save the day. He
prayed to his deity as required and gave
sacrifices to him. Unfortunately, my dice
hated him! So, on the next treasure roll, I
supplied a LG ring of limited
wishes. Nearly all the wishes were later used
to benefit other party members.

The DM must keep in mind the probable
consequences of his ?playing god.? Does
some character deserve a special award or
penalty? Is the character well-played within
the restrictions of his class, race, and alignment?
Will these results have unbalancing
consequences? If all is to your satisfaction,
go for it. It's your game, and you alone are
responsible for it. Don?t allow the players to
pull the lawyer routine on you. If you are
fortunate enough to have players who realize
that this is your campaign, and that you
are the one who determines what its goals
are and how best to achieve them, you will
get no static from them about whatever you
do. But you must be consistent and fair. If
you have done your homework, studied the
books (and once through them is not
enough -- I?ve refereed for almost ten years
now, and I still don?t remember it all, but I
have read it all several times), and planned
out what you want to happen, you will have
no insurmountable problems.
 

Example 1: When I first began refereeing
D&D® games, I, too, ran a Monty Haul
campaign. I was having fun and the players
seemed to enjoy themselves. Before each
gathering, I just couldn?t wait for the players
to discover my newest monsters, tricks,
and magic items.

One day, however, I received a shock.
The characters had just wiped out some
horrible, nasty monster and were dividing
up its treasures. One of them picked up my
newest artifact, the staff of instant death,
and another found a sword I had especially
placed for him. The sword-finder's subse
quent actions showed that all was not well
in River City. He took the sword to a high-level
magic-user, who could identify almost
anything, and found out that he was the
proud owner of the best and most powerful
sword ever created by the dwarves under
the mountain. He then informed me that he
was placing the sword in his extra-large bag
of holding, then dumping both into his
sphere of annihilation!

I was dumbfounded. That sword was a
work of art! What did he mean by throwing
it away like that? I had created it expressly
for his character! He further told me that he
would give away all his magic items except
for his mace +4, plate mail +3, and his
boots of speed, and would then give all his
wealth to the church and become a cleric of
Odin!

After the game, I cornered him and asked
why he?d done all that. All he said was: ?It
isn?t any fun to play like that any more.?

I thought about that all week. At our next
session, for which I was a player, I presented
the DM for the session with a brandnew
character, rolled strictly by the rules.
He was nothing great, but was above average
in some respects. In the following
weeks, I played him entirely within his
alignment, class, and abilities. I allowed
him no more magic or money than he could
reasonably be expected to have by the rules.
I found that my friend was right! It was
more fun to play a character who ran into
problems once in a while and had to use his
head, rather than one who got whatever he
wanted due to his unlimited power and
possessions.
 

Example 2: Two years ago, I decided that
my campaign was getting out of hand from
my allowing characters into play from other
campaigns. I didn?t want to trash the whole
thing and have to redraw all my maps,
random encounter tables, etc. Besides, I
didn?t particularly want to DM a whole
party of 1st-level characters again.

So, I made a list of the rules I wanted to
stick by from then on, including those official
rules which had not been previously
used but which would not greatly slow
down game play. I also set down in writing
the limits for abilities and powers that I
would allow the characters. Then I waited
for the next session.

After everyone sat down around the game
table, I asked for all the character sheets to
refamiliarize myself with the characters. At
the same time, I told the players to write
down three things they thought their characters
deserved or needed.

While they were writing, I began to
revise the characters. All statistics above 18
were dropped to 17 or less unless I specifically
remembered that it had been a legitimate
gain in my game. Such super-high
scores were generally dropped by 1-6
points, unless it was a primary score for that
character class, in which case I allowed an
18 to stand.

Magic items not found in the Dungeon
Masters Guide or issues of DRAGON®
Magazine, or that I regarded as overly
powerful or unbalancing to the game, were
sharply downgraded or removed entirely.
Hit points, alignments (except for evil
ones), mundane possessions, monetary
treasure, and physical attributes such as
height, weight, etc., were untouched.
Throughout the process, I kept in mind
how well or how badly the character had
been played in regard to his alignment,
character class, race, etc.
    <Magic Items: DMG+UA>
    <Magic Items: DRAGON>

I then asked for the ?wish sheets? and
compared them to the revised characters. A
few requests were entirely reasonable, and
these were granted, but most were greedy,
selfish, or just plain silly. (A couple fitted all
three of these categories.)

One player, whose fighter had been consistently
unlucky in finding any kind of
magical armor beyond ring mail +1, asked
for some kind of protection. He received a
suit of chain mail +3 that happened to be
available on loan from his temple.

On the other hand, another player
thought his lawful good character deserved
a ring that would instantly and automatically
kill or paralyze, by touch, any chaotic
or evil creature. His "wish" also was
granted, but he never did figure out just
why all subsequent chaotic or evil creatures
he met either fought him from a distance or
were immune to magic. He had terrible
luck with saving throws, too. . . .

After I handed back the character sheets,
and after the predictable hue and cry had
died down to relatively calm sulking, I
explained why the changes had been made.
I handed out the copies of the new house
rules, and we discussed them. A couple of
these rules were subsequently discarded,
but a number of new ones were added. This
surprised me; I hadn?t thought to ask the
players what kind of campaign they wanted.

The resultant campaign worked very
well, and we established a cooperative relationship.
I kept the magic and power in the
campaign to a low level. The players
thought about more than killing and collecting,
and the campaign became great fun for
everyone.

Dungeon Masters should try working
with their players instead of for or against
them; players have good ideas, too. If the
rules are getting too cumbersome or complicated
for your group's style of play, think
about what you and your players really
want and need in your campaign.
 

If you are not particularly happy with the
direction in which your campaign is heading,
or if you are an aspiring DM, try these
methods. Remember:

1. It's your campaign, first and foremost.
Don't be railroaded into something you
don't want;

2. Work with your players. A little time
invested at the beginning will pay dividends
in mutual enjoyment later on;

3. Keep it within the AD&D rules; and,

4. Have fun!

FEBRUARY 1986

THE FORUM

I would like to give, and perhaps receive, some
advice in relation to “The Way We Really Play,”
by Tom Armstrong (page 38, DRAGON issue
#106). I have now been refereeing for two years,
an expert in the opinion of a true beginner, yet I
still consider myself a beginner. I have played
through what Mr. Armstrong refers to as Stage 1,
the “Monty Haul” campaign. I have also played
through Stage 2, the stage where the referee
discovers what he has done, and attempts to turn
himself around and stick to The Books. I am now
sitting in Stage 3, the so-called “normal” stage.
It is here where my agreement with Mr. Armstrong’s
very accurate account of the development
of a DM stops short. He gives one particular
piece of advice that is the offender: work with
your players. There is a very big problem with
this advice. My players don’t want to be worked
with. Now either I’m unlucky, and most other
DMs in the world have nice, sweet, cooperative
characters, or Mr. Armstrong is lucky, and most
players generally tend to be slightly uncooperative.
I would guess the latter. The reason for this
is that not many players also referee, and even
fewer of the ones that do are at the same stage the
DM is. It is for this reason that players very
rarely understand the DM’s motives in any
actions taken.

I have had players get downright flippant and
angry when I have laid down new and perfectly
sensible rules. They simply didn’t understand
them or why I thought they were necessary. In
addition to simply misunderstanding a DM’s
motives, most players, if you manage to let the
Monster Manual slip out of your grasp for just a
moment, just love to point out that “That’s not
in the book!” When you attempt to explain why
you changed it, they simply misunderstand your
motive again. Very few players will work with
you, because they don’t like it and don’t understand
it!

Mr. Armstrong has several small pieces of good
advice which may work with some players. In
addition to this, I have found some ways of
handling player problems as well, but I’m sure
that somebody out there could help me, and I
would appreciate any advice. I have basically
found two ways to handle most awkward situations
and rule changes. The first handles most of
the problems: Never let your players see the
books! Ever! If they don’t know the rules in the
first place, then they won’t even know if you
changed them. If they want to know about a spell
or the abilities of a character class, you explain it
as you see fit. Secondly, if they’ve never seen the
rules, they can’t pull the “not in the books”
routine.

If the players have seen enough to know when
you change the rules, then the best way to handle
the situation is to explain the change to the best of
your ability. If they don’t understand then, just
tell them that you’re not trying to make life rough
for them, but, believe it or not, attempting to
improve the game. If they still don’t like it, and
complain or get downright ornery, tell them very
quickly just who the heck the boss is, and if they
don’t like it, then they can lump it! If you can,
make a threat, but don’t make it too harsh, and
make sure you can afford to carry it through. If
you have only one player, then you obviously
can’t threaten to kick him out of the game! I hope
I have helped some beginning DM out there.

Good luck!
Paul D. Ingraham
Prince George, B.C.
(Dragon #109)
 

<>
Quote:
Originally Posted by weasel fierce
Of curiosity, as it appears you have made somewhat of a move from rules-heavy (or maybe more accurately, heavily defined, such as AD&D and Mythus), to light and rules-easy (your own D&D game, you speak of, as well as LA).

Did anything in particular bring around this change, or was it always there, and you just offered more detail for those who wanted (enough rope to hang from..)

It is sort of interesting, as I have known many gamers go through seemingly the same phases.
First they play the basics, then they add tons of detail, options and "crunch", and eventually many fall back to a "barebones" gaming approach.

Cheers
Ivan

Hi Ivan!

The answer to the above is a general yes <nervous laugh>

I did go from bare bones to much fleshier creations.
A good part of that development was to enable otherrs to manage or feelk happy with.
The DJ Mythus system was the culmination of that, and I never played it with all the rules.
It was designed to function on about 20% of the entrie mechanics and rules offered.

When I wrote the LA game system I decided to keep it as lean as possible, leave details desired by one or another GM up to them, just include what was necessary to generally run the same game system, what could be applied for the mlst part to other genres as well.

In short, I wrote the game pretty much the way I enjoy GMing or playing...except for all the combat modifiers that i generaly ignore even when I am, running a dungepn crawl <laughing>

Cheers,
Gary