Post/Author/DateTime	Post
On_the_wings_of_TPK 11-25-06, 05:06 PM	Ah yes thread the third. As the second thread is now as well getting off topic, I would like to spawn another thread. This isn't to look so much at the need of extra material, but more at the roles, and responciblities of the DM. I also hope to talk about what invested powers of goverance that the DM has, and touch base on balance. yes this is were we will consider inter player powerlevels, as well as power levels of the challenges. I have the feeling the teetering rock that is the CR system will come up. Disclaimer one: Bad DMing is just bad DMing. If the DM is a jerk, and dolt then that is a matter unto itslef, and I wish to not cover it with this thread. For the purpases of this thread, I would like to assume that we are talking about comopent, and good DMs. Disclaimer two: This thread is a spin off of the second thread, witch is a spin off of the first thread. That is the end of their relationships, as the topics are different. The Roles: So what is exactly the role of the game master? My understanding is that the role of the GM, or DM, is multi fold. The DM is the controller of the NPcs, the mind of the BBEG. The monsters that you fight, and the trap that you spring. It is the job of the DM to create, and run the adventure. In that the GM also either chooses the campaign world, or creates it. S/he is also the adjudicator of the rules. And I think here in lies the problem. S/he also has the right to change any rules within the books that s/he feels the need to. But it it is generally accepted that to do so should have a good reason, and that the player should be notified in advance when such a change is coming. The Dm must also be fair and consist with the rules at all times. However this does grant the Dm the power of the final say over any rules dispute. However that being siad, the players do have the right to leave, or discontinue playing at anytime. Thus the Gm should never abuse this power. But what is an acceptable use of this authority, and what is an abuse? Who then is the authority on what books are avable? can a player demand that a certain source book be allowed? can the DM not allow a book? And if so for what reason? This also leads us into who invites the players. I was under the impression that it was the DM who invited the players to play in his/her game. Is this no longer the case? Do the players have the authority to add or remove other players. Along with the responciblities of running a fair and consistant world for the PCs to adventure in, the GM is also responcible for ensuring that the majority of poeple have fun the majority of the time. How much of that burden falls on the players? And this leads us into balance. I defined balance in another thread, so i won't do that here again. I will however say that the Dm is responcible for enforcing balance. But to what responciblities do the players have to balance themselves? Also becuase the DM is the one who places, and controlls the challenges, be it trap or monster. the DM is the one who is responcible for balancing the encounters against the PCs. This is a fine line indeed. To difficult, and no one has fun as they die all the time. To easy and it becomes boring. But then that begs the question what is an ideal challenge?
Aegeu 11-25-06, 07:25 PM	Lots of good debate topics here... Books: The DM decides what books are allowed. If the DM has not read a sourcebook, they can and should disallow it to prevent things such as the player from a thread a while back whose reason for every ability they had was "I'm a half giant". Invitations: I see adding new players as a team effort between the DM and players. Both can invite new players, but if they create personality conflicts, the other people need to say so to prevent a massive explosion later along the line Fun: The DM needs to create a fun environment, the players need to get along so they can have fun in it. The DM makes it possible to have fun, the players need to take advantage of that possibility Balance: The DM must enforce the rules, as normal. THe players need to avoid munchkining. Powergaming is fine; the DM should not make a knee-jerk response about how omg brokez0rs the build is because of one fight. The players need to have beatable builds, though. Pun-pun is bad, a Frenzied Berzerker is fine.
Gondor 11-25-06, 08:33 PM	Purpose of a DM This may seem like an easy question to answer at first, but it is really rather complicated. There are several different approaches to DMing, and some work better than others for different people. Some DMs think that their job is to provide a story for players to play, and to keep the game moving along on this plot. I strongly disagree with this theory. I believe that the DM exists to run the world around the PCs. He/She should not have a particular plot in mind when running a game. Your job as the DM is to run the events of the world, and to let the PCs react to these. The PCs should come up with the story, not the DM. The reasons for this are numerous. 1. This method makes the world seem real. If you decide that a particular action is required to advance your plot, and then "encourage" the PCs to pursue this course of action, you are effectively guilty of railroading them. It seems that no matter what the PCs do, the events happen anyway. They will always be driven back on course for some reason; they will always be sent to one place eventually. This makes the world seem fake. 2. This method also makes success far more rewarding. When the players have real choices about what to do, doing something important that makes a real change in the way events are unfolding is more satisfying. If it is entirely possible for the PCs to leave the war zone instead of saving the kingdom from the Orcish army, they will feel good when they decide to risk it and fight the orcs. Or, if they leave, they will know that it was actually their decision to leave, and that they have the freedom to choose their character's actions. 3. This method makes failure more tolerable. The PCs will know that their choices can determine the course their characters take. If they know this, and a particular choice leads them away from an opportunity, they will try harder to make the right choice next time, instead of blaming the DM. 4. This method further serves to encourage roleplaying and causes players to take an active interest in the game. When they know that their decisions impact their character's actions, and thus the world around their characters, they are more likely to pay attention to what their characters would do according to their personalities. This point is best supported by looking at an example of a different playing style. Imagine that the DM has a wonderful plot cooked up, in which the PCs save the queen from an evil dragon, thereby winning the war. If the DM constantly diverts the PCs back on course whenever they deviate from his plot, they soon realize that it is futile. They will end up at the same destination no matter what they do. They soon lose interest in the game. If, on the other hand, a war is raging and an evil dragon threatens the queen in a campaign without a DM-determined "plot", the players will deliberate about what they should do, knowing that their decision will have a real impact on the game world. The sly, self-centered Rogue PC will try to do the thing that is best for him (playing in character), now that he knows his decisions will have an impact on his future. The Paladin will strive harder to do what is right, now that he knows that it is possible for him to do wrong. The same is true of every class. DM Cheating In many games, a quandary comes up about whether the DM should cheat from time to time. DMs usually do this in order to save the PCs from something, although some give the same attention to NPCs. Many DMs accept this practice without question. However, I strongly oppose it for the following reasons: 1. Success is simply not very satisfying if there was never the possibility of failure. If, no matter what the players do, the results are the same, whether victory or defeat, the game is not fun. This is closely related to the above reasoning for letting the players create the plot. If you can fail by the same set of rules by which you succeed, success is all the more fun. 2. Following the rules encourages an interest in the game, and, consequently, in characters and roleplaying. If the PCs know that there is a real possibility of their death and failure, they will plan more carefully. They will consider backup plans and escape routes. They will think about actions before taking them, instead of charging right in to the fray, no matter how many opponents they face. This is how real people behave. When the players start to analyze risks like their characters really would, roleplaying truly begins. 3. Following the rules eliminates feelings that the DM discriminated unfairly against one player. If the DM ultimately determines success or failure, and not the randomness of dice or the plans of the players, they will feel frustrated when they fail, and feel as if they have accomplished nothing if they succeed. The difference between dice determining outcomes and DMs determining outcomes is very important here. Dice, like any random event, are always arbitrary. DMs, however, are unfair. Deciding, yourself, the outcome of an action makes the game seem not random or realistic, but arbitrary. In such a game, it feels like success is controlled entirely by the whims of the DM. This ruins the game. Please note that none of this is intended to be relevant to the use of houserules. I have no problem with houserules, although most of them are unnecessary. It is important to follow one system of rules for friend and foe. These rules may be those in the Players Handbook, or they may not be, but whatever rules are used must be used consistently. Also, before someone calls me on re-posting, I'm going to admit that I copy/pasted that from a post I made three years ago. My opionions haven't changed much though, so I think it's fair game.
TarlSS 11-25-06, 09:38 PM	TO draw an analogy from your most hated MMOS, The DM's job is to provide everything that MMO provides on a client basis. He houses the databases of items, designs the artwork, writes the crappy stories. The player provide PVP and are there to simply experience the rest of the game. They forked over the 15.00, read and agreed to the terms and conditions, they'll eat what they get, glitches and all. It's quite simple really. You decide to play the game or not; the DM determines the rest. While certainly you may request a few things, and the DM might be wise to acquiece if he wants your attentions, otherwise he'd not be wrong to simply ignore you.
Ongorth 11-25-06, 11:04 PM	In my experience the DM does one and only one thing: Pretend to be in charge. I've DM many successful campaigns without doing a single thing above and beyond what the players in the campaign have done. I expect the players to show up to the game, design game material, balance game material, review new game material, design and execute plot hooks, adjucate rulings and resolve social issues. As the DM, what I have to do is look like I have authority, keep all the players' ideas organized, play the NPCs and roll the monster's dice. Thats it really. Some DMs take it upon themselves to do everything by themselves. That's ok for some, I suppose, but I am much to lazy and stupid to do that. At least I have the foresight to understand this. I know that I have no clue what the players want in the game, so I make them tell me. I know I don't have the time or patience to design and balance everything they want to experience, so I make them do it. This works very well for me. However if you are smarter and more dedicated then I am, I'm sure you can do it all. But personally, I see the DM as a supervisor who can get by faking it so long as he surrounds himself with a quality set of players.
tsuyoshikentsu 11-25-06, 11:18 PM	I'm not even going to bother trying to address everything, so I'm going to comment on two things. Books: The only time a DM shouldn't allow books is if he's unfamiliar with the rules involved. If a player gives you a copy of said rules, it's now on you to read them. Balance: I can't tell you where the responsibility lies here, but I can tell you my system. I allow everything. If you create an overpowered character, I don't care. If you play him while moderating his power, and in really crucial spots use some facet of the rules to do insane things, that's usually fine. If you're constantly doing insane things to the point where it's wrecking the game, you're going to be rerolling or or leaving.
pres_man 11-26-06, 02:45 AM	I think if we are going to assume that the DMs are competent, then we should assume the same for the other players. Game setting: DMs should not decide on the game setting without first consulting the potential players. If a majority want to play the game world the DM has suggested, then the few that don't can choose not to play in it or accept the group consensus. If they don't choose that setting then the DM should either change to their preference or step down as the DM. Game rules: All people involved with a game should get a say on the game rules. This involves also the inclusion of outside texts for the game. If the majority what to include, say, the Complete series of books, then they should be included. If a DM does not want them in the game, again the DM can step down and let someone else run the game. If the group decides not to include something (sorry you can't be a Jedi because we are not including any SW stuff), then the player can choose not to play or can accept the wishes of the group. Invitations: These should be generally be made by the entire group, with one major exception. That being if the game is being held at someone's home, that person gets final say on who gets to come to their home. Really they can't say a person isn't in the group, but they can say the person is not allowed to come to their home. This generally means if the rest want to include the banned person, they need to change where the game is played. It is bad form to invite someone to a group without first consulting the rest of the group, and I mean before you invite them, not before they arrive ("I invited Jennifer to the game on Saturday, is that ok?") Rules Interpretations: All rules should be open to interpretation by all players, not just the DM. Yet DMs should be the official decider on a case-by-case basis while the game is going on. All interpretations should be open for review after the game. DMs can be wrong about a rule, there is no shame about this, most of the time we go on intiution when deciding how a rule should work, but we should always be willing to change how a rule works if we get it wrong, or if a better way of doing it is suggested. Balance: It is everybody's role to balance the game. If someone has a build that is too powerful, they should try to tone it down. On the other hand, if a group (assuming the above with group decisions) decides to use "broken" (or really bent) classes/races, remove the LA and/or racial HD for ECL or what have you, then they have choose to unbalance the game. That is what they think they want. If a DM does not want to play that kind of game, step down and allow someone else to run it. Ideal challenge: Depends on the group. For some a tough combat is, for others a diplomatic mission is, for still others mysteries are ideal challenges. This such a broad catagory that it seems hard to come to any kind of definition here. I would say using the CR system is a good starting place, even for social challenges, you can use the CR system to give you an idea of how "skilled" the NPCs that the party are. But this is only a starting place, you have to tailor to the individual group. Big Issue: To have a good gaming experience it is often best to have everyone act in a mature fashion (though they can roleplaying immature characters). Acting in a mature fashion often requires one to respect the opinions of others and to realize that they are sacrificing their own time for the game and should have an equal say in it as anyone else.
Kradlo 11-26-06, 08:54 PM	The Game Master is in charge, period. He makes the rules, and decides which books, material, etc., are or are not included in his game. Players are free to suggest anything they like, but the GM has the final call. That's Rule Zero. Players can ultimately vote with their feet (Rule Minus One). So, though the GM has the power, he has to use it wisely or he'll be the only one at the game table.
HamHam 11-26-06, 10:47 PM	Who then is the authority on what books are avable? The play group. Can a player demand that a certain source book be allowed? Define demand. Can the DM not allow a book? Against the general will? No. This also leads us into who invites the players. I was under the impression that it was the DM who invited the players to play in his/her game. Is this no longer the case? Yes, it has. Do the players have the authority to add or remove other players. Absolutely. Along with the responciblities of running a fair and consistant world for the PCs to adventure in, the GM is also responcible for ensuring that the majority of poeple have fun the majority of the time. How much of that burden falls on the players? It's everyone's job to act in such a manner as to make the game fun for everyone. And this leads us into balance. I defined balance in another thread, so i won't do that here again. I will however say that the Dm is responcible for enforcing balance. But to what responciblities do the players have to balance themselves? Everyone should be mindful of balance issues. Also becuase the DM is the one who places, and controlls the challenges, be it trap or monster. the DM is the one who is responcible for balancing the encounters against the PCs. This is a fine line indeed. To difficult, and no one has fun as they die all the time. To easy and it becomes boring. But then that begs the question what is an ideal challenge? Challenges should follow logically from the story. Conversely, the story should lead to appropriate challenges for the party.
CharlieRock 11-27-06, 09:20 AM	The Roles: So what is exactly the role of the game master? The players are just the characters they play (one, two, more). The DM is the rest of the world. This is where I do most of my work. Creating the bazillions of NPCs, locations, and scheduling events, as well as weaving the effects of the players into this. Who then is the authority on what books are avable? can a player demand that a certain source book be allowed? can the DM not allow a book? And if so for what reason? This also leads us into who invites the players. I was under the impression that it was the DM who invited the players to play in his/her game. Is this no longer the case? Do the players have the authority to add or remove other players. Players can ask to use stuff from another book, realizing that if I am not familiar with it, then 'no'. I usually don't mind other stuff added in. However ,I may dump a lot of that responsibility back onto the player (Don't go using a new spell item in game and then tying it up for 20 minutes trying to flip pages and shuffle books to figure out what exactly you just did. And if I don't know right off hand, I may or may not help. And, just skip you for a few rounds while the rest can play). More players are always welcome (I am in a 4-person team atm, so room for a few more :)), and recommendations are always accepted. I already know a few trouble players, and can generally tell when another comes along ('Can I be evil? *when we already told them we were good and had a pally*) Don't laugh ,yet. Sometimes its that obvious. Theoritically, the players can kick someone from the team (including me) ,but the only one to do so, so far, has been myself. Along with the responciblities of running a fair and consistant world for the PCs to adventure in, the GM is also responcible for ensuring that the majority of poeple have fun the majority of the time. How much of that burden falls on the players? Team effort. If someone needs to quit the team, its something I confer with the other players before deciding. If they enjoy the antics ,then maybe I just need to adjust my glasses and see all the fun I was missing. Players, I'll ask to come prepared and keep notes. I.e. I'm not keeping track of who has what or how much they found of it. I don't track the spells used (though I ask from time to time to gauge how much steam is still in the engine). I don't draw maps for the players (I xerox mine, sans notes, and cut it up and deal it out a bit by bit. LoL). I may ask one to role-play an NPC for a moment, but not often. And this leads us into balance. I defined balance in another thread, so i won't do that here again. I will however say that the Dm is responcible for enforcing balance. But to what responciblities do the players have to balance themselves? Also becuase the DM is the one who places, and controlls the challenges, be it trap or monster. the DM is the one who is responcible for balancing the encounters against the PCs. This is a fine line indeed. To difficult, and no one has fun as they die all the time. To easy and it becomes boring. But then that begs the question what is an ideal challenge? If the players have fully updated and accurate notes on their character sheets, I'm a hog in heaven :D To heywood, if they're balanced.:P The ideal challenge? :thinks: Our attrition rate is proportional to our time spent in planning. To quote a Great NCO ,'**** Poor Planning Produces **** Poor Performance.'
archcomponent 11-27-06, 09:50 AM	The Roles: So what is exactly the role of the game master? The role of the DM is to provide enjoyment for the people at the table - all of the people at the table. When you get finer than that, you start looking at the 'how', which is beyond the 'what'. And that is fine, but it should never eclipse what the DM should accomplish. S/he also has the right to change any rules within the books that s/he feels the need to. The 'right' to change anything in any way? Perhaps, in the same way that a DM has a 'right' to run a crappy game. But not really, no. If the DM does something that detracts from the enjoyment of the people at the table, they fail at their reason for being there. The DM should follow the rules of the game except for in places where the group chooses to have things run differently. Who then is the authority on what books are avable? can a player demand that a certain source book be allowed? can the DM not allow a book? And if so for what reason? Material is available on consensus. No one person at the table can demand that a particular book be made available or unavailable - and this includes the DM. Do the players have the authority to add or remove other players. Of course they do. How much of that burden falls on the players? Players have an equal responsibilty, weighted by the amount of material that they control. Which, in the end, is one little piece - their character. They should not detract from the play experience, but, really, with all the situations and plot resources available to the DM, he should be able to make the player's choices work. If he cannot, and it is because of something truly unreasonable from one player, that player has the duty to make it work. But to what responciblities do the players have to balance themselves? Everyone at the table should contribute to keeping party balance in line. But a DM should craft situations and encounters to properly challenge the entire party and each member, meaning that by no means does each player have to be perfectly aligned with each other balance-wise. then that begs the question what is an ideal challenge? That is easy. One that is enjoyable to the group. Really, if the DM finds creating and running a game to be a sacrifice so strenuous and horrible that they need recompense in the form of unquestioned power over other people in the game, they simply should not DM.
Gedrin 11-27-06, 12:56 PM	Responsibilities of the DM: 1. Create and Maintain the Game World: This includes a number of other things a. General world building from nations and NPCs to the nature of magic b. Choosing what is in the world, including the races of the world that might be available as PC races and the character classes and PrC's that may have developed. c. Defining the way the world works, including setting the rules that simulate the function of the world. 2. Create entertaining adventures: includes a. Composing a challenge, including the obstacles. b. Creating NPCs and dressing the part of the world that the adventure occurs in. c. Being familiar with rules that will be used. d. Selecting rewards that are apropriate and making them available for the PC's to obtain e. Creating an "entry point" for the adveture that each character will be able to use. 3. Manage the Game Group a. Make sure everyone knows when the game is. b. Be mindful of the kinds of adventures that the Players enjoy. c. Be aware that the GM is often seen as the leader, and set an apropriate tone for the group 4. Portray Consequences a. Judge the actions of PC's in accordance to the rules used. b. Portray the consequences of the results good or ill. c. Portray the reaction of the NPC's, environment, and other game world forces to the actions of the PC's. d. Be judicious in portraying consequences with a mind to fun.
razorboy 11-27-06, 01:16 PM	The role of the DM is to adjudicate and enforce the rules for the purpose of providing the players with an enjoyable adventure/campaign. The adjudicating and enforcing the rules should include the following: 1) A good understanding of those rules, how they work, as well as a commitment to consistently abide by these rules. 2) If the DM has houserules, he needs to be consistant in their application, and make sure the players are aware of these houserules and are able to take advantage of these houserules themselves. 3) Making sure that the players have access to the options and rules that the DM is comfortable with. If the DM is not comfortable with a particular book (due to power level preference, or unfamiliarity, or a conflict between the world of the adventure/campaign and the material [Oriental-themed classes in a pseudo-Medieval England setting for example]) then he is within his right to refuse the use of the particular book/class/spell/race/whatever (see point #1). This is not meant to stifle player creativity, the DM puts hours and hours more work in making his game, and should not be put under additional stress because of a munchkin character or having to review a particular variant rule/spell/class/whatever, or having to change his plans to accomodate some new outlandish spell/class/whatever. 4) The DM should make sure the players are having fun as much as possible. If the players are not having fun then the DM failed in his obligation to the players. Depending on the players and the DM, this might mean that DM must stop in-party fighting, stealing from party members, prevent OOC quarrels and arguments, the DM must reassess the way he is running the game or adjudicating the rules, etc. 5) The DM should have fun himself. If the DM is not having fun, the players are probably not having much fun either. Frankly, (and here's where I expect to get flamed) if the DM has fun by having a DMPC accompany the party, then I say roll with it - as long as the above-mentioned points are taken into account. DMPC and good DMing are not mutually exclusive.
TwiddleStootch 11-27-06, 03:06 PM	For me, being the DM involves the following: 1) World Builder. The DM must build, modify and sustain the game world. this includes managing governments, keeping track of how trade works and managing the environment, IE weather and such. 2) Story teller. One of the most important jobs of the DM is too tell a tale, but this is trickey since the DM doesn't have control for the heroes. So rather then telling a story(which would be railroading) the DM must set-up the story, and then watch as the heroes work through it. 3) The High Judge. the DM is god, supreme judge, lord of the universe blah blah blah. The point is the DM makes all the rules, and so it is the DM's job to make sure everything is balanced and works, this involves houserules, banning of material and making of new material. 4) The Mind behind the Monsters. The DM is the mind behind every NPC, creature and such in the world, it is the DM's job to create, manage and act out these life forms actions, hence filling the world with, hopefully, life like beings for the heroes to interact with. and in conclusion, the DM creates, manages, fills and acts out the all the aspects of the world, making a thriving, living world for the heroes to explore. A game of DnD is not the heroes raiding some dungeon while the DM tries to beat on them with monsters. it is, or should be, the Heroes venturing into the depths of the world, with the DM making it all work from the background. It's not about DM Vs. PC, it is about PC Vs. The World, the DM just happens to be running that world.
Salty_Boy 11-27-06, 03:32 PM	The most apt comparison that comes to my mind in terms of authority and roles is that the DM is the Executive Branch of the game, and the players are the Legislative Branch. The players are free to vote something into use via majority rule, but at the end of the day the DM still has veto power. That said, if the veto power is abused it is well within the means of the players to impeach the DM and find a replacement. There is an unwritten set of checks and balances between the DM and the players, and as with all things political there is a lot of finesse and diplomacy required to make things run reasonably smoothly. In the end, it all comes down to compromise. If you aren't able to come to a reasonable compromise with the DM and/or your fellow players of your own accord you're either too young to deserve a voice in matters (under the voting age), or you're too polemic to be taken seriously most of the time because of your 'extremist' views.
Kursk 11-27-06, 05:30 PM	This isn't to look so much at the need of extra material, but more at the roles, and responciblities of the DM. I also hope to talk about what invested powers of goverance that the DM has, The Roles: So what is exactly the role of the game master? S/he is also the adjudicator of the rules. And I think here in lies the problem. S/he also has the right to change any rules within the books that s/he feels the need to. But it it is generally accepted that to do so should have a good reason, Here ya go. "You're a member of a select group. Truly, not everyone has the creativity and the dedication to be a DM. Dungeon Mastering (DMing) can be challenging, but it's not a chore. You're the lucky one out of your entire circle of friends who play the game. The real fun is in your hands. As you flip through the Monster Manual or look at published adventures on a store shelf, you get to decide what the Player Characters (PCs) take on next. You get to build a whole world, as well as design and play all its nonplayer characters (NPCs). "It's good to be the DM. "The DM defines the game. A good DM results in a good game. Since you control the pacing, and the types of adventures and encounters, the whole tenor of the game is in your hands. It's fun, but it's a big responsibility. If you're the sort of person who likes to provide the fun for your friends, or to come up with new ideas, then you're an ideal canidate for DM. "You are the master of the game - the rules, the setting, the action, and ultimately, the fun. This is a great deal of power, and you must use it wisely." DMG page 4.
CharlieRock 11-27-06, 05:49 PM	posted in wrong thread :doh:
LiefKarakse 11-27-06, 06:14 PM	question. if a PC walks up to an NPC and he says"I talk to him" is he reqired to RP what he does or is that the job of the DM? is it metagaming if he just walks up to the NPC and says that and roles a diplomacy check? our group has been arguing about whether or not it is acceptable to do this or not because one of our members says that doing that is metagaming and saying that you have to RP DnD for it to be DnD and i have been in disagreement with him the this is acceptable...and it is really tearing me because im am determining whether to stay in our group or split off and form a new group so i need to know what is what
CharlieRock 11-27-06, 06:18 PM	If they say 'I walk up and talk to him' without anything further; that is OOC. Saying ' I walk up and say blah blah blah' that is ... IC. (I guess) Issue hasn't really popped up yet ,here. :embarrass
pres_man 11-27-06, 06:22 PM	question. if a PC walks up to an NPC and he says"I talk to him" is he reqired to RP what he does or is that the job of the DM? is it metagaming if he just walks up to the NPC and says that and roles a diplomacy check? our group has been arguing about whether or not it is acceptable to do this or not because one of our members says that doing that is metagaming and saying that you have to RP DnD for it to be DnD and i have been in disagreement with him the this is acceptable...and it is really tearing me because im am determining whether to stay in our group or split off and form a new group so i need to know what is what Not sure how much this has to do with the topic, but ... I would say generally it best to have both roll-playing and role-playing involved. For myself, I find it interesting to use the roll from the social skills to help me direct how to role-play the situation. For example, say my bard along with the group came to see the king and queen. I declare my bard will address the king and queen and try to smooze them, I then roll my diplomacy check only to get a 1. I'm not very high level so that basically means I totally screwed up my effort. My character then says, "Why thank you, your highnesses for seeing us. Before I begin, I would like to say, Queen, you should see to your tailor, he has done a bad job and you look quite fat in that dress. ..." It is necessary to at the very least to discuss the content of the discussion. Just saying, "I talk to him." really doesn't mean much. About what? The weather, great you spend an hour talking to an NPC about the weather and how his crops are doing. I don't think it is totally necessary to get super incharacter, but you should be able to describe the content your character is discussing.
Voran 11-27-06, 06:45 PM	The way I see it the DM is the guy who has gotten stuck, and or has chosen to support the players by running the game. Without the DM there isn't a game. Yes I know without Players there isn't a game either. And without air there isn't a game. And without a planet there isn't a game..etc etc. Anyway, if you want to keep the DM happy, thus continuing to DM, you have to invest him with some power and control. As mentioned, there is a balance to this, if the DM gets too crazy/controlling people leave, resulting in no game for anyone. Here's the way I see it. 1. DM & Players decide what sorta game they're going to play (genre, evil/good, etc etc) 2. Group decides who's playing and what rules, if any, will apply to various things like new players, new characters, players who don't show up, DMPCs, etec. Once the discussion is tabled and decisions are made, they stick, unless the group decides to reset and start from #1. 3. DM then decides what books will be allowed and what character generation rules will be used. This is the opportunity for the players to make suggestions/bribes/whatever. But once past this point, players no longer can introduce new books/etc without DM approval. In some cases, I would say add a rule where if the players really want to bring new stuff in, essentially tossing their old chars so they can play the new FOTM uber build, I'd say the game stops and you reset, going back to step #1. Kinda basic. Some may find it a bit rigid, but I hold to the 'don't change horses midstream' kinda thinking. I have no problem with new material, but I do think it more appropriate to reset the whole game rather than incorporating new material that may not be balanced with existing things. My opinion is, if one player wants to bring in a new source book, every other player should be able to benefit from it as well. And if everyone is potentially going to make changes, may as well change the overall setup.
LCD2YOU 11-27-06, 06:48 PM	Who then is the authority on what books are avable?The play group.The DM. The DM has their world. If those books don't fit their world the DM can and should nix them right away. If the player becomes the DM, they can change what books are alowed to suit their world and campaign style. The DM can also ban some truly pathetic books just because they are poorly written or plain lousy as well.Can a player demand that a certain source book be allowed?Define demand.I think they mean tha t aPlayer issues and ultimatum to the DM saying, "You better allow this book as I'm going to use it anyway." The answer is always: Nope. See above on why the DM has final say on which books.Can the DM not allow a book?Against the general will? No.Again yes. The situation is thus: In every case I've seen like that it is one strong willed player who brow beats the others into seeing things their way through the others and then claims "solidarity". The DM's best bet is to get rid of the trouble making player.This also leads us into who invites the players. I was under the impression that it was the DM who invited the players to play in his/her game. Is this no longer the case?Yes, it has.Both the Players and the DM can find new players.Do the players have the authority to add or remove other players.Absolutely.This one is touchy. The DM has the authority to remove players. The players shuld talk to the DM and then together they can ba a player. If th DM disagrees or won't do anyting about it, the players who disagree can vote with their feet and leave the game themselves.Along with the responciblities of running a fair and consistant world for the PCs to adventure in, the GM is also responcible for ensuring that the majority of poeple have fun the majority of the time. How much of that burden falls on the players?It's everyone's job to act in such a manner as to make the game fun for everyone.If by the word "fun" you mean enjoyable I agree.And this leads us into balance. I defined balance in another thread, so i won't do that here again. I will however say that the Dm is responcible for enforcing balance. But to what responciblities do the players have to balance themselves?Everyone should be mindful of balance issues.Agreed. There are always tales of the Vampire here, the den of Werewolves there and if the players think they are tough enough to go after them, they can. If they aren't tough enough, they should roll new characters to replace the dead ones they killed for thinking that going after something means the DM has to tone it down. A DM doesn't need to tone it down when the players are bent on going after someone of something they can't handle.Also becuase the DM is the one who places, and controlls the challenges, be it trap or monster. the DM is the one who is responcible for balancing the encounters against the PCs. This is a fine line indeed. To difficult, and no one has fun as they die all the time. To easy and it becomes boring. But then that begs the question what is an ideal challenge?Challenges should follow logically from the story. Conversely, the story should lead to appropriate challenges for the party.True, unless the party decides at 2nd level to go after the Great Red Wyrm who is ravaging the countryside 100 miles to the north. If they go after the Wyrm and find it, they are responsible for their own fate and if the dice land and say they die, they die.
starfire311 11-27-06, 07:21 PM	I think if we are going to assume that the DMs are competent, then we should assume the same for the other players. Game setting: DMs should not decide on the game setting without first consulting the potential players. If a majority want to play the game world the DM has suggested, then the few that don't can choose not to play in it or accept the group consensus. If they don't choose that setting then the DM should either change to their preference or step down as the DM. Game rules: All people involved with a game should get a say on the game rules. This involves also the inclusion of outside texts for the game. If the majority what to include, say, the Complete series of books, then they should be included. If a DM does not want them in the game, again the DM can step down and let someone else run the game. If the group decides not to include something (sorry you can't be a Jedi because we are not including any SW stuff), then the player can choose not to play or can accept the wishes of the group. Invitations: These should be generally be made by the entire group, with one major exception. That being if the game is being held at someone's home, that person gets final say on who gets to come to their home. Really they can't say a person isn't in the group, but they can say the person is not allowed to come to their home. This generally means if the rest want to include the banned person, they need to change where the game is played. It is bad form to invite someone to a group without first consulting the rest of the group, and I mean before you invite them, not before they arrive ("I invited Jennifer to the game on Saturday, is that ok?") Rules Interpretations: All rules should be open to interpretation by all players, not just the DM. Yet DMs should be the official decider on a case-by-case basis while the game is going on. All interpretations should be open for review after the game. DMs can be wrong about a rule, there is no shame about this, most of the time we go on intiution when deciding how a rule should work, but we should always be willing to change how a rule works if we get it wrong, or if a better way of doing it is suggested. Balance: It is everybody's role to balance the game. If someone has a build that is too powerful, they should try to tone it down. On the other hand, if a group (assuming the above with group decisions) decides to use "broken" (or really bent) classes/races, remove the LA and/or racial HD for ECL or what have you, then they have choose to unbalance the game. That is what they think they want. If a DM does not want to play that kind of game, step down and allow someone else to run it. Ideal challenge: Depends on the group. For some a tough combat is, for others a diplomatic mission is, for still others mysteries are ideal challenges. This such a broad catagory that it seems hard to come to any kind of definition here. I would say using the CR system is a good starting place, even for social challenges, you can use the CR system to give you an idea of how "skilled" the NPCs that the party are. But this is only a starting place, you have to tailor to the individual group. Big Issue: To have a good gaming experience it is often best to have everyone act in a mature fashion (though they can roleplaying immature characters). Acting in a mature fashion often requires one to respect the opinions of others and to realize that they are sacrificing their own time for the game and should have an equal say in it as anyone else. I was gonna make a more detailed post, but as I was reading eeryones reply, I realized pres_man already said it for me.
HamHam 11-27-06, 07:23 PM	The DM. The DM has their world. If those books don't fit their world the DM can and should nix them right away. If the player becomes the DM, they can change what books are alowed to suit their world and campaign style. It's not the DMs world exclusively. The very fact that it is D&D that is being used, as opposed to some other RPG, is a group decision. What books to include, from campaign setting to splatbooks, is just a derivative step from this. If you don't want to run the campaign the group wants to play, the group will just find someone else to do it. I think they mean tha t aPlayer issues and ultimatum to the DM saying, "You better allow this book as I'm going to use it anyway." The answer is always: Nope. See above on why the DM has final say on which books.Again yes. The situation is thus: In every case I've seen like that it is one strong willed player who brow beats the others into seeing things their way through the others and then claims "solidarity". The DM's best bet is to get rid of the trouble making player. Find better players. I've never had a situation like this. Both the Players and the DM can find new players. True. This one is touchy. The DM has the authority to remove players. The players shuld talk to the DM and then together they can ba a player. If th DM disagrees or won't do anyting about it, the players who disagree can vote with their feet and leave the game themselves. Wrong. If the group decides to kick someone out, then they simply due. The DM can choose to quit over it, just like any other member of the group. True, unless the party decides at 2nd level to go after the Great Red Wyrm who is ravaging the countryside 100 miles to the north. If they go after the Wyrm and find it, they are responsible for their own fate and if the dice land and say they die, they die. The plot hook shouldn't be there in the first place. When the party stops in an inn and the inn-keeper tells them about some aincent ruins outside of town filled with treasure, it is a story telling assumption that they are appropriate to the party level.
Magnus_the_Mad 11-27-06, 08:20 PM	It's not the DMs world exclusively. The very fact that it is D&D that is being used, as opposed to some other RPG, is a group decision. What books to include, from campaign setting to splatbooks, is just a derivative step from this. If you don't want to run the campaign the group wants to play, the group will just find someone else to do it. Look, you can try to gang up on the DM and tell him that you demand that the "Libris Mortis" be allowed in the game for players to use and when the DM says no, you can deal with it or hit the road. YOU tried to force his hand and he denied you. A good DM puts more hours into planning and researching the game than the players do. They have more characters (npcs and dmpcs) to run and more info to read and remember than the players do. I find it rather arrogant that any player would tell me that I will include a book whether I like it or not. And this whole craptastic idea of "the DM better have explained ahead of time why something isn't allowed" is just plain retarded. I don't need to reveal to the players anything more than what they need to know when they play the game. Maybe it's all part of the *gasp!* PLOT that they are not to have access to the material. Plain and simple, I don't need to explain jack and you need to trust me until I give you a damn good reason not to. But I will say that the DM had better play it by the rules and not over do it. Keep it fair, fun and challenging and the players will want more of it. Also, your simplistic view of "the DM can do it or leave" is the very mentality that I see eroding the current version that is D&D. Gygax would smack you if you said that to his face! Not every group has multiple DMs and honestly not a lot of players want to learn how to DM because it doesn't interest them so your little "our way or the highway" aditude is not likely to work. The players just want to play. Don't get me wrong, I do not abuse the rules or limit my players to core only material. To the contrary, I sit down with my group and get their overall feeling for what kind of game world they want and what they hope to achieve and accomplish while playing the adventure. I allow quite a lot of material because I believe that it keeps the players interested. My players do not argue rules at the table because they know it slows the game down and that I will be more than happy to admit I'm wrong if that is the case and will come up with a more clear cut and acceptable ruling either during a break or at the end of the session. In the end, what I have is a party that TRUSTS me to do my job and we all have a great time every Saturday night at the gaming table. But make no mistake, it is my world and you are all players in it. I'm not sure where the quote comes from, but it relates to how good a salesman is. "A good salesman can sell and Arab sand. A great salesman will make him feel good about his decision." The same holds true for DMs. A good DM can get a party to catch the adventure hook that starts the path that you have in mind for them. A great DM will allow them to make choices and believe that everything is unfolding the way it is because of their decisions. That, to me, is possibly the most important thing that defines a DM besides the role of adjucator.
Magnus_the_Mad 11-27-06, 08:37 PM	*Spoiler about "The Shackled City"* Just a heads up :) The plot hook shouldn't be there in the first place. When the party stops in an inn and the inn-keeper tells them about some aincent ruins outside of town filled with treasure, it is a story telling assumption that they are appropriate to the party level. Sorry, forgot about this one in my previous post so I'll address it here. This line of thinking is very dangerous and flat out dumb. You've never read "the Shackled City" have you? The characters hear rumors about a dragon very early in the game and it is well known that he has a lair in the region. Now if the characters go looking for it and happen to find it (it's general whereabouts are rather well known but any common person with half a brain doesn't go looking for a dragon) and go in at level 5, then I guess they had better have another character to bring into the game because there is no way they are going to survive what is in there. The plot hook is that the dragon makes an appearance later on in the adventure when the characters are more able to handle the situation. I tell my players all the time that not every encounter that you come across is meant to be handled with violence. They live longer because they take that to heart. Oh, and in the DMG on page 49 in table 3-2 it even says that a good adventure provides a variety of challenges to the party. Five percent should be overpowering which is defined as five plus levels above the average party level. Overpowering is defined as thus: "The PCs should run. If they don't they will almost certainly lose." Page 50, top left side, DMG 3.5
starfire311 11-27-06, 08:38 PM	In the end, what I have is a party that TRUSTS me to do my job and we all have a great time every Saturday night at the gaming table. But make no mistake, it is my world and you are all players in it. the question is why dont you trust your players... if every player in your group asked to use PHB2 and you didnt like the feel of PHB2 for some reason, but all your players loved it, and felt it would help flesh out the character concept, why would you want to deny them? I think from reading the rest of your post is that you see it as DM vs players(old gygaxian school), while most of the newer school of thought sees playing DnD as a collabortive thing where everyone is an equal in the group, and not one person is better than the rest. in the last few years I have rarly put in more effort in my games than my players, I have players that write 4-10 page journal entries for every game session, I have players that create their home regions in my game worlds, and even create the NPCs and back stories for those NPCs in the region.
starfire311 11-27-06, 08:41 PM	*Spoiler about "The Shackled City"* Just a heads up :) Sorry, forgot about this one in my previous post so I'll address it here. This line of thinking is very dangerous and flat out dumb. You've never read "the Shackled City" have you? The characters hear rumors about a dragon very early in the game and it is well known that he has a lair in the region. Now if the characters go looking for it and happen to find it (it's general whereabouts are rather well known but any common person with half a brain doesn't go looking for a dragon) and go in at level 5, then I guess they had better have another character to bring into the game because there is no way they are going to survive what is in there. The plot hook is that the dragon makes an appearance later on in the adventure when the characters are more able to handle the situation. I tell my players all the time that not every encounter that you come across is meant to be handled with violence. They live longer because they take that to heart. Oh, and in the DMG on page 49 in table 3-2 it even says that a good adventure provides a variety of challenges to the party. Five percent should be overpowering which is defined as five plus levels above the average party level. Overpowering is defined as thus: "The PCs should run. If they don't they will almost certainly lose." Page 50, top left side, DMG 3.5 I played through shackled city took about 1.5 years at once every 2 weeks, anyway, I remember hearing about the dragon at low level and out of character I thought they must be setting this up for later, and in character I thought, stay away from there.
HamHam 11-27-06, 08:59 PM	Plain and simple, I don't need to explain jack and you need to trust me until I give you a damn good reason not to. You just did. Not every group has multiple DMs and honestly not a lot of players want to learn how to DM because it doesn't interest them so your little "our way or the highway" aditude is not likely to work. The players just want to play. More than half that people I play with have also DMed at various times. It's an aquired skill more than anything else. I'm not sure where the quote comes from, but it relates to how good a salesman is. "A good salesman can sell and Arab sand. A great salesman will make him feel good about his decision." The same holds true for DMs. A good DM can get a party to catch the adventure hook that starts the path that you have in mind for them. A great DM will allow them to make choices and believe that everything is unfolding the way it is because of their decisions. That, to me, is possibly the most important thing that defines a DM besides the role of adjucator. Or you could have real, genuine open ended plots prepared. Sorry, forgot about this one in my previous post so I'll address it here. This line of thinking is very dangerous and flat out dumb. You've never read "the Shackled City" have you? The characters hear rumors about a dragon very early in the game and it is well known that he has a lair in the region. Now if the characters go looking for it and happen to find it (it's general whereabouts are rather well known but any common person with half a brain doesn't go looking for a dragon) and go in at level 5, then I guess they had better have another character to bring into the game because there is no way they are going to survive what is in there. The plot hook is that the dragon makes an appearance later on in the adventure when the characters are more able to handle the situation. I tell my players all the time that not every encounter that you come across is meant to be handled with violence. They live longer because they take that to heart. This proves nothing. The fact that something like this is present in a published adventure does not mean it's not bad storytelling. It just means the adventure is itself bad storytelling.
LCD2YOU 11-27-06, 09:43 PM	It's not the DMs world exclusively. The very fact that it is D&D that is being used, as opposed to some other RPG, is a group decision. What books to include, from campaign setting to splatbooks, is just a derivative step from this.I disagree. It is the DM's world. Did the players draw up the world? Not usually. If, like my campaigns where it is home grown, they know nothing about the world, save what they hear in rumors and such.If you don't want to run the campaign the group wants to play, the group will just find someone else to do it.And in the same breath if I'm running a low magic world and they want to bring in high magic, they should go find a different DM.Find better players. I've never had a situation like this.Lucky you. I've seen it from both a player's and DM's perspective. In both cases the problem player was dropped and things went much better. True.Yup.Wrong. If the group decides to kick someone out, then they simply due. The DM can choose to quit over it, just like any other member of the group.Which is essentially what happens if the players leave. 6 to one or half dozen to another.The plot hook shouldn't be there in the first place. When the party stops in an inn and the inn-keeper tells them about some aincent ruins outside of town filled with treasure, it is a story telling assumption that they are appropriate to the party level.Well, I am a DM who believes that many things happen and they run in the world. Te players hear a lot of things. Some real, some fake, some powerful embellishments of what is really happening in the world. I have no problem giving my players a lot of info. I give my players the benefit of being intelligent and understanding that they may be small fish in a large pool. I'll be saying what is going on in the world and I leave it for my players to make decisions on what to do. I have no problem letting players get the rope readied to hang themselves with.
a_psh 11-27-06, 09:54 PM	A good GM, like a good player, like a good improv actor, must always be ready to say "Yes, and..." Not "No." "No" kills things. "No" goes nowhere. "No" takes an idea and destroys it. Not "Yes." "Yes" doesn't go anywhere. "Yes" just leaves an idea sitting there, unfollowed and unenvolved. "Yes, and..." Accept input and add your own. Flesh out every idea on the table, and try to give it the respect and enthusiasm that your friends' ideas deserve. The best games happen when everyone at the table is doing this and resorting to a minimum of "No." You should always feel bad about "No." "No" means the group, together, screwed up somewhere.
HamHam 11-27-06, 09:58 PM	A good GM, like a good player, like a good improv actor, must always be ready to say "Yes, and..." Not "No." "No" kills things. "No" goes nowhere. "No" takes an idea and destroys it. Not "Yes." "Yes" doesn't go anywhere. "Yes" just leaves an idea sitting there, unfollowed and unenvolved. "Yes, and..." Accept input and add your own. Flesh out every idea on the table, and try to give it the respect and enthusiasm that your friends' ideas deserve. The best games happen when everyone at the table is doing this and resorting to a minimum of "No." You should always feel bad about "No." "No" means the group, together, screwed up somewhere. QFT.
a_psh 11-27-06, 10:11 PM	I'm not sure where the quote comes from, but it relates to how good a salesman is. "A good salesman can sell and Arab sand. A great salesman will make him feel good about his decision." The same holds true for DMs. A good DM can get a party to catch the adventure hook that starts the path that you have in mind for them. A great DM will allow them to make choices and believe that everything is unfolding the way it is because of their decisions. That, to me, is possibly the most important thing that defines a DM besides the role of adjucator.How is this tenable? Sooner or later, the metaphorical Arab will wise up and be angry about his sand, won't he? Also, isn't the salesman just plain doing something wrong? Deceptive? Unscrupulous? So, what's happening at the table? Well, you're having a usually-weekly meeting with 4-6 Arabs, to whom you sell sand every week. Maybe you sell them different colors of sand or tell them different things every week, but, every week, you're trying to sell them sand and make them happy. Doesn't it seem pretty likely that, sooner or later, you'll mess things up? Maybe seeing the same trick enough times makes one of the Arabs wise up. Maybe one of the Arabs is a consumate sand-salesman himself and is sick of playing along with your little charade after you sell him some particularly bad sand. Maybe you're just off your game and not laying it on as thick as you usually do. Whatever the reason, you will mess up sooner or later. Then you've got 4-6 ticked-off Arabs staring at you across the table wondering why they kept buying your sand all the time. Feeling at least a little bit gipped, no doubt. Except those aren't just metaphorical people you've metaphorically conned. They're your actual friends. And you can't just pack up and run. And you can't ignore the consequences of your trickery. Great plan, huh? And maybe they aren't angry at you for tricking them all the time. Maybe they're just a bit sad. Maybe they make all kinds of excuses and rationalizations about how this is the way the sand-selling game is meant to be played and it's all okay and they'd lie through their teeth and sell sand when it's their turn to be the sand salesman, or talk about how they read all about this in a sand-buying magazine and it's totally the right way to buy your sand, and the group settles back into the habit of buying sand from you. But, whatever happens, you're not the sly sand salesman any more, are you? They see through your facade every time they buy sand from now on. Maybe they'll still buy pity sand. I wouldn't want to spend the rest of my entire life selling pity sand, though... would you?
Ongorth 11-27-06, 10:40 PM	Man, some people. Expect me to design the world while they happily play in it, the only effort they contribute being one pithy character? I better be making at least $25 an hour to do that! Honestly, if the players only input into the game is "I wanna use this book!" why should the DM even lend an ear to that plea? If they are literally doing all the work, they really should get to make all those choices. It's not pity sand you're selling, its that when you are one person providing for five using only their spare time, sand is just about all you have time to make. Personally, I think this is an awful way to run a game. There are five people playing. They all want to have fun. They should all be utilized in order to do this. They should all have imput and they should all be REQUIRED to contribute in order to receive the enjoyment created by the group. If the players don't do that and don't pay the DM so he can quit his job and spend full time both designing the entire game and integrating the players random whim, I'm not sure why they complain. Like HamHam said, I've never had players like that.
a_psh 11-27-06, 10:47 PM	They should all have imput and they should all be REQUIRED to contribute in order to receive the enjoyment created by the group.Only thing worse than players who won't do that is a GM who won't even let them.
HamHam 11-27-06, 10:57 PM	I disagree. It is the DM's world. Did the players draw up the world? Not usually. If, like my campaigns where it is home grown, they know nothing about the world, save what they hear in rumors and such. Much of the time, the DM didn't draw up the world either. If you use a campaign setting, the world is already created. If you use a system with a setting attached, like Star Wars or L5R or Vampire, the world is already created. Even "Generic DnD" is an already created world. Sure, you might not have a defined geography or politics or what not, but certain things are already laid down: the division between arcane and divine magic, the ways in which economics and cities and towns and such work as laid down in the DMG, the likely population of monsters present in the MM, and probably hundreds of thingss besides that you never think about. And if you do go about changing significant portions of that, it's no longer "DnD". You are at that point creating, not just a campaign setting, but an entirely different system. And choosing to play that system is the same sort of decision as choosing between playing D&D and Star Wars or L5R or IK or Vampire. That's not a decision the DM can make. And in the same breath if I'm running a low magic world and they want to bring in high magic, they should go find a different DM. And they will.
Ongorth 11-27-06, 11:09 PM	Only thing worse than players who won't do that is a GM who won't even let them. Word.
pres_man 11-27-06, 11:32 PM	Again while discussing these issues, if we are going to assume the DM is competent, and not some power grabbing donkey-monkey, then we should assume that the players are likewise competent. A bad player is a bad player, likewise a bad DM is a bad DM. If your argument for claiming a DM should control everything is because players can't be trusted then you are not assuming competent players. DMs may have to take more control in extreme circumstances but this is not inherent in the position, only in that particular group. Also if you are claiming that the DM SHOULD have greater say then the rest because not as many want to DM, then I have to say that is a pretty sad justification. "I am the dicator at the table because I am the only one that is willing to DM, thus I have absolute power. No one dare challenges me because they don't want to stop playing. They put up with my assine behaviour because they feel they have to if they want to play." Yeah, I think we are moving away from the competent DMs in those cases. And by introducing new ideas classes, the players can in fact be giving the DM more chances to make his game interesting. For myself, if a player says, "I want to be a hexblade." I would think to myself, "I don't know much about that class, let me look into it." And I would probably find things that would be interesting to my game that would derive from it. Personally, I don't know how some DMs can play games that are so fragile that a new class is going to destroy it. If the game world is that rigid, how is it that the PCs can do anything of significance without upsetting the setting. Or is it that they can't? They just follow the rail that was laid out for them?
pres_man 11-27-06, 11:39 PM	I disagree. It is the DM's world. Did the players draw up the world? Not usually. The DM can detail the setting (though if he is using a already detailed setting, eberron?, then this disappears doesn't it?), but unless the actions of the PCs is meanless, they help to develop the world. Is that king now in power because the PCs helped him, or would he have gotten in power without their help?
CharlieRock 11-28-06, 02:37 AM	Wrong. If the group decides to kick someone out, then they simply due. The DM can choose to quit over it, just like any other member of the group. The only difference in this statement, and the original it was in reply of: the number of players, and none were used as example. Like, if out of four-person team (DM & 3 players) two players decide to kick the third (w/o DM consultation). The DM then also leaves (joining the third player). Now, watch: this is exactly what would have happened if the DM booted the first two players for booting the third. So, who kicked who from the game is only going to be different when dealing solely with one or the others perspective.
HamHam 11-28-06, 02:42 AM	The only difference in this statement, and the original it was in reply of: the number of players, and none were used as example. Like, if out of four-person team (DM & 3 players) two players decide to kick the third (w/o DM consultation). The DM then also leaves (joining the third player). Now, watch: this is exactly what would have happened if the DM booted the first two players for booting the third. So, who kicked who from the game is only going to be different when dealing solely with one or the others perspective. There are, however, conotative differences between the two ways of stating it. They indicate different parties as being in the wrong, and create sympathy for a different side. Thus, it is false to say that it doesn't matter which way you put it, because it does.
CharlieRock 11-28-06, 02:45 AM	A good GM, like a good player, like a good improv actor, must always be ready to say "Yes, and..." Not "No." "No" kills things. "No" goes nowhere. "No" takes an idea and destroys it. Not "Yes." "Yes" doesn't go anywhere. "Yes" just leaves an idea sitting there, unfollowed and unenvolved. "Yes, and..." Accept input and add your own. Flesh out every idea on the table, and try to give it the respect and enthusiasm that your friends' ideas deserve. The best games happen when everyone at the table is doing this and resorting to a minimum of "No." You should always feel bad about "No." "No" means the group, together, screwed up somewhere. This is ideal when operating under Pres_Man's Postulate*. Outside of those parameters, sometimes you need to place a big giant 'NO' on top of an idea and sit on it. This ,cruelly, should be done by players who find themselves stuck with a bad DM (but is less likely to occur, until the team reforms under brighter suns). Like, telling a DM 'No, my character does not go up to the monk and laugh at his religious symbols. Why are you telling me what I'm doing?' *Pres_Man's Postulate = the conditions are presumed to include good DMs, and players. :cool:
CharlieRock 11-28-06, 02:49 AM	There are, however, conotative differences between the two ways of stating it. They indicate different parties as being in the wrong, and create sympathy for a different side. Thus, it is false to say that it doesn't matter which way you put it, because it does. Only from that one perspective (small groups), or in a large group where a majority of the players (doing the kicking) are approximate to the DM+other players. This is also assuming that ,in large groups, the players doing the kicking a) have already conferred or otherwise have consent of a majority of the players or b)it was so obvious what needed to be done that it becomes a non-issue. Neither side (in small groups) are likely to admit (even to themselves) they were 'wrong' and is likely to view the kicking as done by themselves. Being a third pary perspective it is not only best to view that responsibility as inconsequential, but necessary for objectivity.
Magnus_the_Mad 11-28-06, 03:13 AM	You just did. Mr. Literal I presume? More than half that people I play with have also DMed at various times. It's an aquired skill more than anything else. Good for you. You are not in my group so the same is not true in this instance. Again, I have asked if anyone else wanted to run a game so I can take a break but there is no interest in my group. My group is not your group. Believe it or not, not everyone in a group wants that responsibility. Or you could have real, genuine open ended plots prepared. Choices? Yes, I agree that choices should always be there. But I believe you apparently have no concept of adventure planning and are prone to let the players write every single line of what goes on in the world. Hey, if that is your party's cup of tea then go with it. After all it is what makes them happy right? Personally, I view it as lazy on the DM's part. While there may be DM's who are very talented at winging it every single gaming session, many do not posess such skills and therefore have to write, plan, sketch or brainstorm some sort of content for the next gaming session. I highly advise that you READ the DMG before talking about open ended plots and what not. This proves nothing. The fact that something like this is present in a published adventure does not mean it's not bad storytelling. It just means the adventure is itself bad storytelling. And that is where you are wrong. You like taking the staples of a classic game and throwing them out the window. Is that your right? Yes! Is it fair and by the rules (you know, that whole what's good for the goose is good for the gander argument you've been making)? Heck no!! You are robbing your players of a really true experience in this case. In your world it seems as if every single monster, trap and npc they encounter is of a par challenge that the PCs just might be able to defeat them when they feel it is right for them to tackle the challenge. Remember, there is always someone or something out there that is bigger and badder than they are. Also, it sounds to me that in your games there is no such thing as picking the wrong fight or worry about making a bad decision. Sorry, this sounds like a bad case of lack of creativity to me. What, do the bad guys in your world go "hey! They are the same strength as us!! Lets go pick a fight with that group and get owned" ? That's really lame and poor story telling really. Sorry, I've read material by the folks who put together "The Shackled City" and it is a GREAT adventure. These folks understand what game mechanics are and how to incorporate them into a massive story to achieve GAME BALANCE. Your opinion may be your own and you have the right to voice it, but I trust the folks who help design this game over you any day when it comes to adventure building.
Magnus_the_Mad 11-28-06, 03:33 AM	How is this tenable? Sooner or later, the metaphorical Arab will wise up and be angry about his sand, won't he? Also, isn't the salesman just plain doing something wrong? Deceptive? Unscrupulous? So, what's happening at the table? Well, you're having a usually-weekly meeting with 4-6 Arabs, to whom you sell sand every week. Maybe you sell them different colors of sand or tell them different things every week, but, every week, you're trying to sell them sand and make them happy. Doesn't it seem pretty likely that, sooner or later, you'll mess things up? Maybe seeing the same trick enough times makes one of the Arabs wise up. Maybe one of the Arabs is a consumate sand-salesman himself and is sick of playing along with your little charade after you sell him some particularly bad sand. Maybe you're just off your game and not laying it on as thick as you usually do. Whatever the reason, you will mess up sooner or later. Then you've got 4-6 ticked-off Arabs staring at you across the table wondering why they kept buying your sand all the time. Feeling at least a little bit gipped, no doubt. Except those aren't just metaphorical people you've metaphorically conned. They're your actual friends. And you can't just pack up and run. And you can't ignore the consequences of your trickery. Great plan, huh? And maybe they aren't angry at you for tricking them all the time. Maybe they're just a bit sad. Maybe they make all kinds of excuses and rationalizations about how this is the way the sand-selling game is meant to be played and it's all okay and they'd lie through their teeth and sell sand when it's their turn to be the sand salesman, or talk about how they read all about this in a sand-buying magazine and it's totally the right way to buy your sand, and the group settles back into the habit of buying sand from you. But, whatever happens, you're not the sly sand salesman any more, are you? They see through your facade every time they buy sand from now on. Maybe they'll still buy pity sand. I wouldn't want to spend the rest of my entire life selling pity sand, though... would you? Or the sand could be the story you worked hard on all week for 10 hours plus. You are assuming that the sand is bad and that is a terrible assumption on your part. If my players (which you do not know and should take care not to box them into the shallow, pathetic idiots you have described) are really that unhappy, then I trust them to say so. Some points have come up in past gaming sessions about an adventure and we have all talked them out and came to a resonable and rational decision as to what to do. They didn't feel jilted or robbed. They are happy to be at the table playing their favorite characters. Let's just say that the sand is the story in my case. So you think that me selling them different types of stories every week and varying it is low and wrong? Funny... I thought that was storytelling. How would I mess things up if I planned my story out ahead of time? Folks who misunderstand what railroading is thinks that planning ahead is just that. They are wrong. Railroading is giving only one or a very very limted set (say two or three) of choices that the party can make so that they will go through with the adventure you have written. Railroading is wrong. Planning and writing ahead of time is called DMing. So what trick are you saying is wrong here? Writing and storytelling? By the Gods man, I hope they DO discover that that is what I am selling them!!! Maybe that is what keeps them coming back for more instead of trying to kill me. I haven't conned anyone here, I gave them what they wanted. Honestly your thought process has butchered this point out of proportion. You didn't get it and still may not even after reading this. It's not my fault that I can spell it out for you, it's yours for not comprehending what is written. I don't rob my players, I serve them by giving them a great adventure to play in.
CharlieRock 11-28-06, 03:42 AM	Choices? Yes, I agree that choices should always be there. But I believe you apparently have no concept of adventure planning and are prone to let the players write every single line of what goes on in the world. Hey, if that is your party's cup of tea then go with it. After all it is what makes them happy right? Personally, I view it as lazy on the DM's part. While there may be DM's who are very talented at winging it every single gaming session, many do not posess such skills and therefore have to write, plan, sketch or brainstorm some sort of content for the next gaming session. I highly advise that you READ the DMG before talking about open ended plots and what not. I can offer a third approach :) I wouldn't call my style lazy. I let the players decide all the plot matter for themselves. I create the entire environment they make the choices in. Rolling up lots (I can only guess, but hundreds seems like) of NPCs, mapping out different locations out the whazzoo. Its a lot of work (but fun for me, as I'm cheesy on my details when I can be). The players are then placed into this realm and fend for themselves. They decide where they go, what they take with them, and what they do when they get there. This means that not everything is going to be in perfect balance (otherwise once they level enough I have to go remake the whole realm, just to keep the CRs relative). So, they can wander into something they can't resolve satisfactorily. Well, I didn't force them into the Dragon' mouth, they did that on their own. They also have 'light' sessions sometimes that present not any great danger (they finally trek across Kobold Isle, 10 levels after it was created). But I try to 'quilt' it up enough that they don't wander so deep into LowLevel Land they spend the entire course of the session travelling back out. Or, winging it and dropping a higher level 'shaman' among the kobolds that just recently returned from his OuterPlanes expedition and now plans nastiness. Ususally depending on if the players actually dawdle long enough in the 'low-lands'. I used to wing it all the time. Then I discovered how fun it was (for me) to roll up a slew of npcs and map stuff for no immediate reason.
Magnus_the_Mad 11-28-06, 03:59 AM	I can offer a third approach :) I wouldn't call my style lazy. I let the players decide all the plot matter for themselves. I create the entire environment they make the choices in. Rolling up lots (I can only guess, but hundreds seems like) of NPCs, mapping out different locations out the whazzoo. Its a lot of work (but fun for me, as I'm cheesy on my details when I can be). The players are then placed into this realm and fend for themselves. They decide where they go, what they take with them, and what they do when they get there. This means that not everything is going to be in perfect balance (otherwise once they level enough I have to go remake the whole realm, just to keep the CRs relative). So, they can wander into something they can't resolve satisfactorily. Well, I didn't force them into the Dragon' mouth, they did that on their own. They also have 'light' sessions sometimes that present not any great danger (they finally trek across Kobold Isle, 10 levels after it was created). But I try to 'quilt' it up enough that they don't wander so deep into LowLevel Land they spend the entire course of the session travelling back out. Or, winging it and dropping a higher level 'shaman' among the kobolds that just recently returned from his OuterPlanes expedition and now plans nastiness. Ususally depending on if the players actually dawdle long enough in the 'low-lands'. I used to wing it all the time. Then I discovered how fun it was (for me) to roll up a slew of npcs and map stuff for no immediate reason. And I totally agree with you on this style of approach. I'm not here to say what is right and wrong to the letter of the law, but when a person says that the players do pretty much all the work and the DM plans very little in advance, I call that poor DMing. Some would say I'm wrong, others would agree with me. It's all in how you approach your games. I like your style even though you have, in a way, gone about planning in a different way. You gave your players the initial go ahead for what the material is and that is great. Then you said that you generated the environment and npcs and even plotted maps for future endeavors. Is that not planning ahead? You also reiterate my point of not every encounter is meant to be defeated by the party and I believe that to be very true. Make no mistake though, I am NOT saying that a good amount of encounters should be this way to shell shock the party and make them hate the adventure. I would say that maybe one encounter in 14 would suffice. And by defeating the encounter I mean fight and come out victorius. I see no reason why a party can not talk their way out of a situation with something far more powerful than them. I call that roleplaying while problem solving. I mean, how boring is a world where the PCs can defeat every enemy they meet? Pretty colorless to me. I also agree with you on how fun it is to actually plan out games. I really enjoy it and my players teach me something new about D&D every week, no exaggeration. I read material whenever I get the chance and talk to my players about ideas between session every week. It is great fun for me and my players want more. We've got to be doing something right I suppose.
CharlieRock 11-28-06, 04:14 AM	I like your style even though you have, in a way, gone about planning in a different way. You gave your players the initial go ahead for what the material is and that is great. Then you said that you generated the environment and npcs and even plotted maps for future endeavors. Is that not planning ahead? Well, in theory it is planning ahead. In practice it is more like 'excessive planning for contigencies that are X:Y of actually happening.' I still have an entire archepelago of pirates no one is interested in visiting. :waits: Oh, well. The pirates don't mind :cool:
Cold Napalm 11-28-06, 05:52 AM	Or the sand could be the story you worked hard on all week for 10 hours plus. You are assuming that the sand is bad and that is a terrible assumption on your part. If my players (which you do not know and should take care not to box them into the shallow, pathetic idiots you have described) are really that unhappy, then I trust them to say so. Some points have come up in past gaming sessions about an adventure and we have all talked them out and came to a resonable and rational decision as to what to do. They didn't feel jilted or robbed. They are happy to be at the table playing their favorite characters. Let's just say that the sand is the story in my case. So you think that me selling them different types of stories every week and varying it is low and wrong? Funny... I thought that was storytelling. How would I mess things up if I planned my story out ahead of time? Folks who misunderstand what railroading is thinks that planning ahead is just that. They are wrong. Railroading is giving only one or a very very limted set (say two or three) of choices that the party can make so that they will go through with the adventure you have written. Railroading is wrong. Planning and writing ahead of time is called DMing. So what trick are you saying is wrong here? Writing and storytelling? By the Gods man, I hope they DO discover that that is what I am selling them!!! Maybe that is what keeps them coming back for more instead of trying to kill me. I haven't conned anyone here, I gave them what they wanted. Honestly your thought process has butchered this point out of proportion. You didn't get it and still may not even after reading this. It's not my fault that I can spell it out for you, it's yours for not comprehending what is written. I don't rob my players, I serve them by giving them a great adventure to play in. See I think you missed the point... Sand is the story your trying to sell...unfortunately the arabs have all the sand they could possible want. So you could either trick them into buying YOUR sand until they realize that they have sand of their own and feel sad, cheated, and what not, or you can realize that they have as much sand as you do and instead of selling them sand, you pool your sand and play together to make a sand castle. Of course your players may never realize they have their own sand at all...in which case your golden as you can sell all the sand you want forever. But honestly why do you want to spend all that time and effort (10 hours of hard work) to sell your sand when you can instead play at making a sand castle with your friends? This of course implies good experienced players and DM...new players need to be sold sand until they have enough of their own and bad players...well who cares about them anyways :) .
a_psh 11-28-06, 10:32 AM	Let's just say that the sand is the story in my case. So you think that me selling them different types of stories every week and varying it is low and wrong? Funny... I thought that was storytelling.If I tell you a story, it's "storytelling". But we're not telling a story together. That's a one-man show. You're making the same mistake the WoD books made whenever they talked about "story". Looking at your earlier post,A good DM can get a party to catch the adventure hook that starts the path that you have in mind for them. A great DM will allow them to make choices and believe that everything is unfolding the way it is because of their decisions.So, in other words, GMing is all about maintaining the illusion of choice? How is this not just a big con? I mean, look at the metaphor you used... Cold Napalm nailed it, really.
Levi_Kornelsen 11-28-06, 11:04 AM	Along with the responciblities of running a fair and consistant world for the PCs to adventure in, the GM is also responcible for ensuring that the majority of poeple have fun the majority of the time. How much of that burden falls on the players? My own answer: In good play, the "burden" is shared equally. The GM's role in providing fun is in listening carefully to the kinds of action and challenges that the players are interested in overall. Do they want to roleplay scenes? Fight monsters? Solve puzzles? How much of what? ...And then provide that balance, so far as the fictional world will easily allow it. The role of the player is to 'buy in' to the fictional world the GM is presenting, and to make their preferences clear. A player telling the GM they had a great game and then going home and grouching about the game has no actual beef. A player who remains as engaged in the game as possible, and then openly and honestly tell the GM both what they enjoyed and what they did not has done their share. ...Well, that's how I see it.
mlund 11-28-06, 11:50 AM	The DM's primary responsibility is to define and maintain the boundaries of the game world. The nature of those boundaries are defined by the collective needs and preferences of the entire play group. The DM is trusted to resolve conflicts among the desires of the various folks that hold a stake at the table. You can't please all of the people all of the time. Heck, you can't even please one person all of the time. Expectations to the contrary are the kind of gross stupidity that ruins marriages, families, governments, and gaming groups alike. When any member of a table spends all his or her time and effort trying to satisfy their own idea of "fun" to the exclusion of everyone else things aren't going to end well. The reverse holds true as well - where putting everyone else ahead at your own expense will also end badly. I see most of the DM problems stemming from a Dungeon Master putting himself way ahead of the players or way behind them. The table doesn't need a self-serving despot or a self-righteous martyr. The boundaries of a game in terms of books and material should be about return on investment. A surplus of source material can easily lead to an over-flow of the amount of upkeep a DM is willing to put into keeping a game together. It is up to the DM to decide what can fit within the boundaries of the game environment he or she works to maintain. It is up to the players to decide whether that half-giant psion warlock or the Complete X series is worth scrapping the whole game over. Remember that this whole thing is voluntary. It is not a right nor another one of those ridiculous entitlements people seem addicted to. When it stops being fun for someone, that person shouldn't be participating in the table. This is purely entertainment. Despite what television would have us believe, there are a ton of vastly more important things than entertainment. Those are the things you should be actually stressing over, not Dungeons and Dragons. - Marty Lund
CharlieRock 11-28-06, 12:47 PM	See I think you missed the point... Sand is the story your trying to sell...unfortunately the arabs have all the sand they could possible want. So you could either trick them into buying YOUR sand until they realize that they have sand of their own and feel sad, cheated, and what not, or you can realize that they have as much sand as you do and instead of selling them sand, you pool your sand and play together to make a sand castle. Of course your players may never realize they have their own sand at all...in which case your golden as you can sell all the sand you want forever. But honestly why do you want to spend all that time and effort (10 hours of hard work) to sell your sand when you can instead play at making a sand castle with your friends? This of course implies good experienced players and DM...new players need to be sold sand until they have enough of their own and bad players...well who cares about them anyways :) . Bad players get kitty litter ... used. :yuck:
Kursk 11-28-06, 01:36 PM	The plot hook shouldn't be there in the first place. When the party stops in an inn and the inn-keeper tells them about some aincent ruins outside of town filled with treasure, it is a story telling assumption that they are appropriate to the party level. So, nothing happens in the world except that which the PC's can deal with? What a weird campaign world that would be. No at all realistic.
a_psh 11-28-06, 02:32 PM	No at all realistic.Very little about D&D is realistic or even verisimilar. Just the idea of a world full of treasure-filled "dungeons" waiting to be spelunked doesn't make very much sense. It's quite fair to call something a storytelling convention and leave it at that, given that so much of the rest of the D&D world is, though I disagree that having encounters always be appropriately scaled is truly necessary.
HamHam 11-28-06, 03:18 PM	So, nothing happens in the world except that which the PC's can deal with? What a weird campaign world that would be. No at all realistic. Not what I mean. What I do mean is that these things should be presented in a different way than things that are obviously plot hooks.
Magnus_the_Mad 11-28-06, 08:01 PM	If I tell you a story, it's "storytelling". But we're not telling a story together. That's a one-man show. You're making the same mistake the WoD books made whenever they talked about "story". Looking at your earlier post,So, in other words, GMing is all about maintaining the illusion of choice? How is this not just a big con? I mean, look at the metaphor you used... Cold Napalm nailed it, really. I don't see the problem here. How would you know otherwise unless I revealed the plot to you before hand or you decided to take a sneak peak at my notes while I was in the pisser? My point is that if the players make choices and they get to do what they want to do while the DM is actually prepared ahead of time and can anticipate numerous situations, then they get what they want and the DM has done their job to provide the most bang for their buck. This whole "the players rule the roost or else" mindset is so ludicrous it makes my head spin. If the players hate it that much, they WILL ditch the DM and will either find another one, learn how to DM themselves or be left out in the cold. The choice is that simple. Another poster refered to my playing style as Gygaxian. Thanks for the compliment (although I'm sure you never meant it as such). At least there are some DMs out there that are not afraid to take off the kid gloves and present a challenge to the party every now and then while maintaining a balanced game. If you think Gygax is too tough, then I feel sorry for you because you have never played real D&D in your life.
Magnus_the_Mad 11-28-06, 08:04 PM	Not what I mean. What I do mean is that these things should be presented in a different way than things that are obviously plot hooks. So maybe I misunderstood your previous posts then. Are you saying that impossible plot hooks should not even be hinted at until the players are ready for them or that they should be introduced in a more subtle matter so that they don't take a more important front seat to the much more deserving and more manageable plot hooks? If choice number two is what you mean then I am in agreement with that. Foreshadowing is good, but railroading players to their doom is a big time negative.
a_psh 11-28-06, 08:40 PM	I don't see the problem here. How would you know otherwise unless I revealed the plot to you before hand or you decided to take a sneak peak at my notes while I was in the pisser?Maybe I'll know when I see my input being constantly ignored or redirected. Maybe I'll know because I've GMed, too. Maybe I'll know because I read a forum post you made just now. It's easy to tell when a GM is working with a script. If it's not easy right away, it sure is easy after a few years of playing with that GM. This whole "the players rule the roost or else" mindset is so ludicrous it makes my head spin.Or how about "the group rules the roost"? Just the fact that you frame it as players vs. GM is telling. All kinds of authority is easily shared in an RPG. It's just that there's so much of that stupid "GM is God" rhetoric floating around that most people only do it subconsciously. If the players hate it that much, they WILL ditch the DM and will either find another one, learn how to DM themselves or be left out in the cold. The choice is that simple.GMs who follow the style you advocate actively train players to expect less. It's easy to be content with token input into a one-man show if that's all you've ever had. If you think Gygax is too tough, then I feel sorry for you because you have never played real D&D in your life.What if I think Gygax is too bland?
starfire311 11-28-06, 09:11 PM	Another poster refered to my playing style as Gygaxian. Thanks for the compliment (although I'm sure you never meant it as such). At least there are some DMs out there that are not afraid to take off the kid gloves and present a challenge to the party every now and then while maintaining a balanced game. If you think Gygax is too tough, then I feel sorry for you because you have never played real D&D in your life. I think gygaxian style is lame at best, I grew out of it in the 6th grade, yes that was over 20 years ago... when I realized that there was more to a game than trying to enforce your will on a group of people and when I realized DnD is not a competition it isnt about who wins, and yes in player Vs DM mindset there is a winner and a loser, ussually it is the players. I have never thought Gygax was too tough it is more that it is internally inconsistant and silly at best. Read KoDT sometime it is histerical, and that is classic Gygax type game.
a_psh 11-28-06, 09:28 PM	Here's another way of looking at it. Time for some satire...being the gm is the ****, and also bull****. the **** because you get to toy with peoples' little lives, bull**** because it's like the god**** sims, their little bladder meter goes all the way to the red and they can't figure out for them stupid selves to get off the stupid couch and go to the stupid bathroom. no, you gotta click on the little thing, and click on the other little thing, and they spend so long in there that they miss their carpool and get fired, and then they come crying to you, wah wah wah. feebs. right, but i mean your players. they think that if a. you didn't say so or b. it's not on their character sheet, then it's not true. which is a problem, because a. you can only say so many things, and you hope to god they're more interesting than "scooter, you really have to pee, do you go to the bathroom? do you make it back out in time for your carpool?" and b. there are only eight things on their character sheet, and one of them is that they kill puppies for satan for **** sake. so what you want to do as gm is make them responsible for their own pee. keep the good stuff for yourself, naturally, but give the bull**** away.(from kill puppies for satan)
Magnus_the_Mad 11-28-06, 10:39 PM	Maybe I'll know when I see my input being constantly ignored or redirected. Maybe I'll know because I've GMed, too. Maybe I'll know because I read a forum post you made just now. It's easy to tell when a GM is working with a script. If it's not easy right away, it sure is easy after a few years of playing with that GM. When did I say I ignore the players requests to do something? Did you even read my posts? Apparently not. You can read a forum post that I wrote just now, but my players do not even know my name on these forums. They can speculate at best. It's easy to tell when a DM is working with a script if they are doing a bad job at it. My players have yet to complain and they have been with me for six years. Or how about "the group rules the roost"? How about maybe. When deciding on new players and house rules, sure. When deciding on game material and sources, that's my deal not the players. I set what is approved before you even roll your character so you are in the know as to what is allowed and what is not. Just the fact that you frame it as players vs. GM is telling. All kinds of authority is easily shared in an RPG. It's just that there's so much of that stupid "GM is God" rhetoric floating around that most people only do it subconsciously. Sharing authority is encouraged at my table, but you are dead wrong if you think I am a DM vs player type of person. I encourage my players to do well and they always ask if they can introduce new material. I rarely deny stuff for my players, but If I say 'NO' to a source and explain why, I never get a temper tantrum from my players. The "DM is God" is true to a point. I control the exsisting pantheons in the world you play, not you. GMs who follow the style you advocate actively train players to expect less. It's easy to be content with token input into a one-man show if that's all you've ever had. Thats your opinion. My players expect more from me every time and they leave the table retelling their favorite part of that nights adventure quite frequently. My players are never lax, content or satisfied. They want more and I try to deliver as much as possible. Stop guessing about my group and worry about yours. Your flavor varies from mine and that is all that is being debated at this point. Your opinion is not right or wrong, just different. Same goes for my opinion. What if I think Gygax is too bland? To each their own. I might mean something if I cared more about what you think but I don't.
Ongorth 11-28-06, 10:59 PM	Another poster refered to my playing style as Gygaxian. Thanks for the compliment (although I'm sure you never meant it as such). At least there are some DMs out there that are not afraid to take off the kid gloves and present a challenge to the party every now and then while maintaining a balanced game. If you think Gygax is too tough, then I feel sorry for you because you have never played real D&D in your life. I have a hard time understanding in what conceivable manner DM role has to do with the challenge level of a game. Is there some notion that because the players have input in the game, their input will categorically make the game easier? Are these the same players who can't detect a railroading and never buck the track? Cause, I've never met them.
a_psh 11-28-06, 11:09 PM	When did I say I ignore the players requests to do something? Did you even read my posts? Apparently not."Let's just say that the sand is the story in my case. So you think that me selling them different types of stories every week and varying it is low and wrong? Funny... I thought that was storytelling." "I don't need to reveal to the players anything more than what they need to know when they play the game. Maybe it's all part of the *gasp!* PLOT that they are not to have access to the material. Plain and simple, I don't need to explain jack and you need to trust me until I give you a damn good reason not to." "But make no mistake, it is my world and you are all players in it." Yeah, I read them. From your posts, it seems that you believe a good GM monopolizes content/setting authority, and also tries to simultaneously monopolize plot authority but then pretends that he doesn't. I get that you don't think there's anything wrong with that. But, well, I just fundamentally disagree. It's easy to tell when a DM is working with a script if they are doing a bad job at it.Okay, fine, whatever... Let's say they never figure it out. You're still running an elaborate shell game. Great. How does that make play actually, y'know rewarding? Substantive? For you, even? If you're pulling all the strings, don't you already know how the puppet show is gonna end, anyway? Your flavor varies from mine and that is all that is being debated at this point. Your opinion is not right or wrong, just different. Same goes for my opinion.Oh, I think it's much more fundamental than "flavor" here. We can write anything and everything off as opinion, but that hardly helps answer the OP's question any more meaningfully, does it? To each their own. I might mean something if I cared more about what you think but I don't.Well, if thinking Gygax is too tough means I've never played real D&D, what does thinking Gygax is too bland mean?
Cold Napalm 11-28-06, 11:41 PM	Well, if thinking Gygax is too tough means I've never played real D&D, what does thinking Gygax is too bland mean? That you play D&D at above a 4th grade level.
CharlieRock 11-29-06, 12:02 AM	Well, if thinking Gygax is too tough means I've never played real D&D, what does thinking Gygax is too bland mean? I always thought of Gygaxian as adding a lot of historical stuff. Like, the whole land-owning name level stuff from the original system. Very medieval-ish. If that is too bland ... :thinks: ... then I guess it means you'd like the campaign setting to be like Dungeonworld or Dark Sun? Something radically different.
CharlieRock 11-29-06, 12:33 AM	I have a hard time understanding in what conceivable manner DM role has to do with the challenge level of a game. Is there some notion that because the players have input in the game, their input will categorically make the game easier? Are these the same players who can't detect a railroading and never buck the track? Cause, I've never met them. The DM does control how challenging the game gets. By playing the bad guys as intelligent or stupid for one. When players run the game. (http://www.cruisegazing.com/RPG_Motivational/yourcampaign.jpg) :D
a_psh 11-29-06, 12:55 AM	I always thought of Gygaxian as adding a lot of historical stuff. Like, the whole land-owning name level stuff from the original system. Very medieval-ish. If that is too bland ... :thinks: ... then I guess it means you'd like the campaign setting to be like Dungeonworld or Dark Sun? Something radically different.Well, I'm a big fan of sword-and-sorcery, though sometimes in different proportions than D&D's (where there tends to be a lot of sorcery in the sword, too, which isn't something I always dig). I guess, to me, the "Gygaxian" implies a fascination with character as quasi-verisimilar person rather than character as character or character as game token. To use a TV show analogy, it's like you're in a documentary rather than an actual full-blown work of fiction. This can lead to some bad decisions. The GM fiercely trying to keep you from knowing anything that your character wouldn't know, for example (pretty untenable most of the time). Or, you could say, random encounters (though that's more of a "characters as game tokens" thing, really). I've seen a few folks use "Gygaxian" (or, sometimes, "old school") to mean something different and very broken, too. A focus on characters as both game tokens and quasi-verisimilar people, with every single moment of their lives turned into some kind of challenge. Where even buying mundane equipment is regarded as some grand challenge and there's a strong insistence that everything be "realistic" as much as possible. This kind of style is often coupled with the idea that nothing in the world should be easy, with a focus on always being "in character" but with that character as a kind of obsessive optimizers himself. Often punctuated by the rejection of "powergaming," "meta-knowledge," and metagame-level mechanics but obsessive (and supposedly purely in-character) strategizing. The kind of play where you want everything to be hard, nobody elides anything, and you're constantly frustrated by "powergamers" who out-think you by treating their characters as game tokens and "wussy roleplayers" who are content to piddle about instead of carefully planning out how many gallons of lamp oil to buy for the next character-maiming adventure. That one's dysfunctional up the wazoo.
CharlieRock 11-29-06, 01:27 AM	Well, I'm a big fan of sword-and-sorcery, though sometimes in different proportions than D&D's (where there tends to be a lot of sorcery in the sword, too, which isn't something I always dig). Same here. I use 'sword and sorcery' as synonimous with 'low fantasy' (whereas 'high fantasy' is more magic + commonplace non-humans). Sometimes I play 'fantasy' games that don't feature magic everywhere (like GURPS Conan). Okay, alot of times thats what I play. ;) I guess, to me, the "Gygaxian" implies a fascination with character as quasi-verisimilar person rather than character as character or character as game token. To use a TV show analogy, it's like you're in a documentary rather than an actual full-blown work of fiction. This can lead to some bad decisions. The GM fiercely trying to keep you from knowing anything that your character wouldn't know, for example (pretty untenable most of the time). Or, you could say, random encounters (though that's more of a "characters as game tokens" thing, really). Ah, I see. The ol' 'your in a box'-type DM. Tells you nothing of what is outside the box, and only lets you bump into things as you stick your feet out of it and move around blindly. Oft times that is done poorly. I still refuse to play where my character, 'wakes up in a field with amnesia' for this reason. I've seen a few folks use "Gygaxian" (or, sometimes, "old school") to mean something different and very broken, too. A focus on characters as both game tokens and quasi-verisimilar people, with every single moment of their lives turned into some kind of challenge. Where even buying mundane equipment is regarded as some grand challenge and there's a strong insistence that everything be "realistic" as much as possible. This kind of style is often coupled with the idea that nothing in the world should be easy, with a focus on always being "in character" but with that character as a kind of obsessive optimizers himself. Often punctuated by the rejection of "powergaming," "meta-knowledge," and metagame-level mechanics but obsessive (and supposedly purely in-character) strategizing. The kind of play where you want everything to be hard, nobody elides anything, and you're constantly frustrated by "powergamers" who out-think you by treating their characters as game tokens and "wussy roleplayers" who are content to piddle about instead of carefully planning out how many gallons of lamp oil to buy for the next character-maiming adventure. That one's dysfunctional up the wazoo. :mymy: I don't think I have ever played that. :thinks: :rofl: Nope :) Edit Non-Gygaxian gaming (http://www.cruisegazing.com/RPG_Motivational/rifts.jpg) :D
a_psh 11-29-06, 01:43 AM	This is ideal when operating under Pres_Man's Postulate*. Outside of those parameters, sometimes you need to place a big giant 'NO' on top of an idea and sit on it.Good point. Sorry I've been slow in replying to it. This calls for a fourth option to be added to our first three ("Yes," "No," and "Yes, and...") "No, but..." If you just can't accept an idea and build on it, then "No, but..." is the answer. Say something, but don't just block the idea... offer an alternative. Some kind of compromise. "I want to do X!" - "No, I'm not sure that'll work... What do you like about X, though?" "Well, I like A, B, and C." - "Hmm... that kinda sounds like Y. I'm not okay with X but you can give Y a try, at least."
CharlieRock 11-29-06, 01:49 AM	Good point. Sorry I've been slow in replying to it. Anyway... (reply will be edited in in a sec, pressed enter by accident) I've done that ... in the wrong thread even :rofl:
Magnus_the_Mad 11-29-06, 01:57 AM	I have a hard time understanding in what conceivable manner DM role has to do with the challenge level of a game. Is there some notion that because the players have input in the game, their input will categorically make the game easier? This can't possibly be a serious post. You do know you are on the D&D boards right? The DM has everything to do with the challenge level of the game and if you don't understand that then maybe you shouldn't be posting on these forums. Are these the same players who can't detect a railroading and never buck the track? Cause, I've never met them. Maybe you should try playing D&D then.
a_psh 11-29-06, 02:04 AM	Are these the same players who can't detect a railroading and never buck the track? Cause, I've never met them.Maybe you should try playing D&D then.So it's not D&D unless it has rails?
CharlieRock 11-29-06, 02:04 AM	This can't possibly be a serious post. You do know you are on the D&D boards right? The DM has everything to do with the challenge level of the game and if you don't understand that then maybe you shouldn't be posting on these forums. I had a hard time understanding that one,too. The example given I found to be incoherent with the stated premise. :bored:
CharlieRock 11-29-06, 02:10 AM	This calls for a fourth option to be added to our first three ("Yes," "No," and "Yes, and...") "No, but..." If you just can't accept an idea and build on it, then "No, but..." is the answer. Say something, but don't just block the idea... offer an alternative. Some kind of compromise. "I want to do X!" - "No, I'm not sure that'll work... What do you like about X, though?" "Well, I like A, B, and C." - "Hmm... that kinda sounds like Y. I'm not okay with X but you can give Y a try, at least." Your using the envious environs of Pres_Mans postulate. I meant more like the extremes: 'Can I have a Dragon?' 'Why?' 'So, I can go pwn the town!' 'Um ... you'll have to find one ,then' 'I can't just start out with one?' *looks at all the detail placed into the town about to get burnt up* 'Ah ... nope.' Or (my worst RL experience where I should have just said 'no') 'I want to be a Jedi!' Edit: Admittedly outside of Pres_man's Postulate. The Jedi-Player is an extreme example of ... ugh-iness.
Magnus_the_Mad 11-29-06, 02:11 AM	Yeah, I read them. And really didn't understand much. From your posts, it seems that you believe a good GM monopolizes content/setting authority, and also tries to simultaneously monopolize plot authority but then pretends that he doesn't. I get that you don't think there's anything wrong with that. But, well, I just fundamentally disagree. What do you fundamentally disagree with? Do you just take the rules in the DMG and toss them out? I never once in any post made any comment about monopolizing all of the game content. My players detail out their characters very well on top of the relationships they have with one another as well as the npcs in the world around them. Where is the monopoly? I let my players craft whatever they are capable of crafting within the guidelines of the RAW. Again, is that not game content? I certainly didn't tell them which item to make. Setting authority? Damn right. That's where we seriously disagree. You think the DM has no authority but I believe they have the final authority. I never pretended anything. I never once said I don't control the game content. That's my job. The players expect me to have material ready for them when we show up to game. That is a concept that you don't get apparently. Okay, fine, whatever... Let's say they never figure it out. You're still running an elaborate shell game. Great. How does that make play actually, y'know rewarding? Substantive? For you, even? If you're pulling all the strings, don't you already know how the puppet show is gonna end, anyway? So what you are saying is that if the material is written ahead of time that it can't possibly be good material that players will enjoy. That's illogical. That's like saying that you can't make a movie before the fans get to see it. Rewards? uh, getting together and having fun. Gaining levels. Fleshing out your characters story. Trying to figure out what is going on with the BBEG. Loot (of course). The hilarious situations that arise from roleplaying. The dramatic situations that arise from roleplaying. The rewards for me? That my players enjoyed what I created and that they made it a part of themselves as well. No you don't already know how it will end. You can plan the best game of your life and you can NEVER guarantee how it will end. Players get to do things that you dont' expect and that is where their talents and skills pay off. They steal the show and that makes is so worth it. Oh, I think it's much more fundamental than "flavor" here. We can write anything and everything off as opinion, but that hardly helps answer the OP's question any more meaningfully, does it? No it's not much more fundamental than flavor. You prefer games where the players create it all as the game goes along. The DM is a door stop who should let them have free reign all the time. I do not prefer to do this. That's the flavor difference my friend. But yes, it does not help the OPs point at all when we get into these debates. Well, if thinking Gygax is too tough means I've never played real D&D, what does thinking Gygax is too bland mean? That you think Gygax is too bland and I don't. You needed me to spell that out for you?
Magnus_the_Mad 11-29-06, 02:14 AM	So it's not D&D unless it has rails? The intent of the reply was that he should play D&D to meet other players. This guy had no clue as to the DM's role in presenting challenges so therefore I suggested that he actually play for a change. Plot choices do not constitute railroading. You don't understand what the concept of railroading is if that is what you think. Railroading is the idea that no matter what your characters do, the DM will always make sure that they do exactly what he wants them to do. So by your definition of railroading, all adventures put out by WoTC is a railroaded adventure? The players have choices and can do many things but in the end they ultimately reach the goal of the story that the writer intended after all. If you think that is railroading then your DM runs something else other than D&D.
CharlieRock 11-29-06, 02:42 AM	Plot choices do not constitute railroading. You don't understand what the concept of railroading is if that is what you think. Railroading is the idea that no matter what your characters do, the DM will always make sure that they do exactly what he wants them to do. So by your definition of railroading, all adventures put out by WoTC is a railroaded adventure? The players have choices and can do many things but in the end they ultimately reach the goal of the story that the writer intended after all. If you think that is railroading then your DM runs something else other than D&D. I felt rail-roaded whenever I played (and that is a rarity these days itself) and my character was surrounded by other characters that were so much more powerful. I felt like the sideshow guy whose choices really didn't matter because a)I lacked the means to effect anything, and b) the NPCs did have those means. Sometimes I wondered why I was there at all. Since it seemed I was just there to watch events unfold between the NPCs (and sometimes a certain PC, which wasn't me). This was reinforced when I played a game where my RL self was transported into the game. (Therein you really learn what your friends think of you, btw). I got a baseball bat weapon proficiency, and a car (and the brawler skill set). Other players had magic pools ,(because they were practicing religions that believed in magic) and 'divine/arcane' avatars. Railroaded as all heck.
a_psh 11-29-06, 02:56 AM	And really didn't understand much.:rolleyes: What do you fundamentally disagree with? Do you just take the rules in the DMG and toss them out?If you're talking about the stuff on how to run a game, a good fraction of that is, most definitely, misguided. Just read the cheesy intro, for example. You think the DM has no authority but I believe they have the final authority.No, I think that the GM shares authority. Which is not the same as not having any. I never pretended anything. I never once said I don't control the game content. That's my job.How about plot authority? Your posts pretty consistently allude to the illusion of choice within a fairly tight pre-developed framework. To giving them your sand or showing them your movie instead of actually sharing the shared imagined space. Is this the case in play? What about narrational authority? Who describes events as they happen? The players expect me to have material ready for them when we show up to game. That is a concept that you don't get apparently.Oh, I get it. You're thoroughly neglectingto mention the different kinds of material are at work here, however. It's one thing to write up a town in a moment of crisis or make a relationship map of NPCs or graph out a several-room dungeon and quite another to plan out where the "story" is going to go. So what you are saying is that if the material is written ahead of time that it can't possibly be good material that players will enjoy. That's illogical. That's like saying that you can't make a movie before the fans get to see it.So players are just fans witnessing some grand directorial masterwork? I thought they were supposed to be, y'know, helping create it. No you don't already know how it will end. You can plan the best game of your life and you can NEVER guarantee how it will end. Players get to do things that you dont' expect and that is where their talents and skills pay off. They steal the show and that makes is so worth it.Now think about this: If players stepping up and "stealing the show" is hands-down the best part of the game, why isn't that the entire game, then? Why isn't the game all about that? If that wonderful moment of shared creativity is really the most important and definitive thing, shouldn't everyone at the table be doing absolutely everything in their power to make that happen all the time? (And game designers should, too, but that's a topic for a different thread.) You prefer games where the players create it all as the game goes along. The DM is a door stop who should let them have free reign all the time.Hell freakin' yes, I prefer a game where everyone actually contributes. I'd be insane not to. I do not prefer to do this. That's the flavor difference my friend.I can't just write that off as "style". Or, more specifically, I can't just write "style" off as something ephemeral and inconsequential. Not all approaches are equal. That you think Gygax is too bland and I don't. You needed me to spell that out for you?*shrug* You had more than that to say about folks who called him "too tough," is what I meant.
a_psh 11-29-06, 03:45 AM	Plot choices do not constitute railroading. You don't understand what the concept of railroading is if that is what you think. Railroading is the idea that no matter what your characters do, the DM will always make sure that they do exactly what he wants them to do.Plot choices that all lead to the same place anyway aren't really choices at all. Thus, railroading. So by your definition of railroading, all adventures put out by WoTC is a railroaded adventure?A lot of them are. Whispers of the Vampire's Blade is a great example. It's a pretty exciting read but then you realize just what the little booklet actually contains... contrived scenario after contrived scenario. It's a total railroad. The ones that aren't are mostly just, well, dungeons. Things that sit there waiting to be explored. The problem with published adventures is that, well, they're a bunch of useful canned prep and a bunch of completely useless canned prep that you have to unwind and undo in order to actually turn it into a good session. Running a published module or running your own thing that you prepared like a published module means that you're missing out on something I described as absolutely critical to making the game truly "great": every scene has to firmly and thoroughly build on the last. The players have choices and can do many things but in the end they ultimately reach the goal of the story that the writer intended after all.Published adventures are notoriously bad at actually developing stories. That's because the only kind of story that a published module can really tell is one where the actual players are minimally involved and things are just expected to work out a certain way. Nearly-ubiquitous predetermined endings are just one example here.
CharlieRock 11-29-06, 04:54 AM	How about plot authority? Your posts pretty consistently allude to the illusion of choice within a fairly tight pre-developed framework. To giving them your sand or showing them your movie instead of actually sharing the shared imagined space. Is this the case in play? What about narrational authority? Who describes events as they happen? Er, I confuse 'narrational' as 'plot' authority .Aren't they the same? Edit: At least ,isn't one the product of the other? Oh, I get it. You're thoroughly neglectingto mention the different kinds of material are at work here, however. It's one thing to write up a town in a moment of crisis or make a relationship map of NPCs or graph out a several-room dungeon and quite another to plan out where the "story" is going to go. Here, I can see a difference. But, they always blur on me in practical usage. The town in crisis, or the exploration (and survival) of a dungeon is the story. At least, as much a story as I can hope to shape in-game. Now think about this: If players stepping up and "stealing the show" is hands-down the best part of the game, why isn't that the entire game, then? Why isn't the game all about that? If that wonderful moment of shared creativity is really the most important and definitive thing, shouldn't everyone at the table be doing absolutely everything in their power to make that happen all the time? (And game designers should, too, but that's a topic for a different thread.) In all fairness, you do have to 'set the stage' ,before 'stealing the show'. Not all of it can be done in pre-game prep time. Plot choices that all lead to the same place anyway aren't really choices at all. Thus, railroading. Very true. The ones that aren't are mostly just, well, dungeons. Things that sit there waiting to be explored. In a nutshell, yes. After all, isn't it all just shadows on the wall before we interact with them? The problem with published adventures is that, well, they're a bunch of useful canned prep and a bunch of completely useless canned prep that you have to unwind and undo in order to actually turn it into a good session. Running a published module or running your own thing that you prepared like a published module means that you're missing out on something I described as absolutely critical to making the game truly "great": every scene has to firmly and thoroughly build on the last. Like canned ingrediants, though; sometimes it'll do okay for taste. Especially in those 'I'm a new DM (or never before DM'd). How do I make an adventure?' threads. Run a module, then figure out what parts you liked (and see if you can duplicate those bits). Then, if still not sure, run another. Until one day you think 'Instead of canned chili, I'm going to use fresh meat & tomatoes. Oh, and I like onions ,so I'll add that bit. That sounds like chili to me.' And save the cans for when you have those 'no prep time' days and don't feel up to winging it. Published adventures are notoriously bad at actually developing stories. That's because the only kind of story that a published module can really tell is one where the actual players are minimally involved and things are just expected to work out a certain way. Nearly-ubiquitous predetermined endings are just one example here. I've seen some that lamentable did this. And others that were fairly decent. Still, a few that were really ,pretty, good. Besides the 'explorathon' modules ,the amount of time and effort taken to write out a 'generic' module that provides such an in-depth story is going to be disproportionate to the reward. Though lately I have been seeing some DCCs (from Goodman Games) ,specifically, that are quite deeply written. (They are about the largest modules I have seen. Almost the size of a splatbook, or larger.)
a_psh 11-29-06, 05:23 AM	Er, I confuse 'narrational' as 'plot' authority .Aren't they the same? Edit: At least ,isn't one the product of the other?"Narration" is mostly just who gets to describe things. You may note some games where players would roll dice and state actions and the GM would do the description and other games where players would roll dice and state actions and the GM would tell them success or failure and then look to the player for the description. This tends to bounce around freely in most groups because, well, few people think it's really critical to horde this kind of power. Which is good. But it's a very important kind of power because, while just exerting narrational authority usually doesn't give you any lasting control over the game, it does define a lot of the moment-to-moment interaction in a group. "Plot authority" has more to do with what actually happens. Or when it happens. I guess a cartoon metaphor works pretty well here: "plot" stuff is like a storyboard and "narrational" stuff is how you turn that into an actual cartoon by filling it out with all these carefully-drawn and well-illustrated frames. But the guy whose job it is to draw cartoons strictly from someone else's storyboard has very limited creative input: mostly he's just adding his own art style and color to fill up a pretty rigid framework that somebody else laid out. The town in crisis, or the exploration (and survival) of a dungeon is the story. At least, as much a story as I can hope to shape in-game.Well, the way the players interact with the town or dungeon is the story. So you could say that you're building the foundation of the story but focusing on creating that actual story in play. And save the cans for when you have those 'no prep time' days and don't feel up to winging it.My main gripe with published adventures is that they do too much in a counterproductive kind of way. So you have to go back and undo half of it and then redo it. In other words, they give you some great canned content... and then some extra stuff mixed into it that you kinda have to filter out and replace with your own in order to make it work; whereas I think it'd be better if you only got the first kind or if the two were more easily separated. I can't quite express what makes the useful part of a published module and what makes the counterproductive part, so I'll get back to you on that sometime later after I've had some time to sleep on it.
CharlieRock 11-29-06, 05:41 AM	"Narration" is mostly just who gets to describe things. You may note some games where players would roll dice and state actions and the GM would do the description and other games where players would roll dice and state actions and the GM would tell them success or failure and then look to the player for the description. This tends to bounce around freely in most groups because, well, few people think it's really critical to horde this kind of power. Which is good. But it's a very important kind of power because, while just exerting narrational authority usually doesn't give you any lasting control over the game, it does define a lot of the moment-to-moment interaction in a group. "Plot authority" has more to do with what actually happens. Or when it happens. I guess a cartoon metaphor works pretty well here: "plot" stuff is like a storyboard and "narrational" stuff is how you turn that into an actual cartoon by filling it out with all these carefully-drawn and well-illustrated frames. But the guy whose job it is to draw cartoons strictly from someone else's storyboard has very limited creative input: mostly he's just adding his own art style and color to fill up a pretty rigid framework that somebody else laid out. Okay. Works for me. I was thinking under this equation (story = action + <background, or events>). But, to me, making up the bad guys and where they live is about 90% of the story (background) as I'm going to get done in prep. From then on, they labor under their own design. Players may have their characters 'opt out' of a story by non-action. I.e. if they just rent out the top floor of the tavern and live off their loot from last session, 'something' is going to happen. Even if it has to be (your much loathed) 'random' encounter :evillaugh (I tailor those random encounter tables so something will happen to reflect the ongoing world around them, just what exactly it is ,is the only random element.) I believe you have a mail, A_psh. :P
Ongorth 11-29-06, 08:01 AM	I find it funny how much effort the man who complains that others ignore his posts doesn't even put in the effort to read a tiny one all the way. We are discussing DM role. You made a comment about "tough games". I fail to realize what the game's challenge level has to do with the DM's role. Basically,what makes a "DM as God's" game more challenging then a "DM as supervisor" game. The only possible implication I could think of, was that you believed that player involvement by necessity made the game easier, as that is the only fundemental difference. At which point I made a joke concerning where you found these players.
CharlieRock 11-29-06, 08:15 AM	So that's what you meant?! You need a few more skill points in 'Foruming-Examples' ;) That one hit me from left field and broke warp9 on it's way back out. :blink: Like, this is one challenge in the DMasGawd game : roll yer saves :P (http://static.flickr.com/48/151100117_a9b1ce326d.jpg) (forewarned raw language)
Vengeblade 11-29-06, 08:50 AM	I skipped half of this thread after getting the general idea, so sorry if I say anything that's already been covered. Overall, I feel that the DM has majority control over everything, from allowed books/classes/races/etc. to type of campaign being played. Here's the main reason why: Amount of contribution. The DM makes the world, the people (except the players, of course), the enemies, and every other detail in the world. The DM does more work for the campaign then all the players combined (as far as I know) and should, in the end, have the most say about what should be. Now,we can't forget that the DM needs to be responsible and fair in his rulings if he wants people to continue to play in his campaign. On the other hand, many players need to swallow their pride and just go with what the DM gives them to work with, they might actually like it when they stop fighting it, tooth and nail. The general rule is for everyone to have fun, but also respect the work others put into it. For example, my players use to argue with ever little change I made, no matter why I did it. I had disallowed books and classes either because they didn't fit in my world or I felt they weren't classes I wanted PCs to have (namely, frenzied berserker and dread necromancer). Now, some of my players argued just because they wanted the option to play the class and never had any real interest in playing it. I told them I work on my campaign an average of 5-8 hours a week as well as working, plus time off to just relax (I get anxious and/or stressed real easy if I don't just walk away for a bit). No one else wanted to DM besides me for a year and a half. My roomate is now finally running another game for his other friends on fridays, and mine remains on mondays (once a week). Now lets add in how half of the players don't write or think up histories for their characters. So, I put in huge amaounts of time compared to my players and most of them don't even try to get involved in the creative process of contributing (sp?) to how the world works. So, I feel I get more say in what gets put in or out. My players now respect that decision and have even started to want more restrictions in rules, like requiring a 1 page backstory or removing about a third of the available base classes (I use most books, since I buy them all and read them first usually.). They're starting to learn what I've learned about a game with endless possibilities: You never know what you like until you try it and sometimes you've just got to go where the wind blows you and stop fighting it. Sorry for rambling on like that. As for new people being allowed in, I've always thought it should be a unanimous decision by the group, because just one player not getting along with anyone can bring the group down. But if anyone person's opinion mattered the most, it would be the person who owns the place where you game. Their place, their stuff.
CharlieRock 11-29-06, 09:03 AM	Well said,Vengeblade. I think that DMs should have authority over rules and be fair about it. The players are a)counting on them to be fair, and b)are the very ones that give the DM that authority.
Kursk 11-29-06, 12:12 PM	What if I think Gygax is too bland? I can assure you that playing with Gygax isn't bland. If you don't have the actual experience to play the level of character you have, your character may die though. From some questions I see on this board, "I have a 20th level X character, how do I pick my nose?" I don't think a lot would.
Olskool 11-29-06, 01:06 PM	Now think about this: If players stepping up and "stealing the show" is hands-down the best part of the game, why isn't that the entire game, then? Why isn't the game all about that? If that wonderful moment of shared creativity is really the most important and definitive thing, shouldn't everyone at the table be doing absolutely everything in their power to make that happen all the time? (And game designers should, too, but that's a topic for a different thread. That special "wonderful moment of shared creativity" where the players steal the show should'nt happen all the time. It would get really boring after a while. DMs have to vary their pacing and action to keep the player's interest.That means you can't have the big cool action scene every moment of the game. There has to be some buildup to the big action scene or its meaningless.
Ongorth 11-29-06, 03:41 PM	So that's what you meant?! You need a few more skill points in 'Foruming-Examples' ;) That one hit me from left field and broke warp9 on it's way back out. I'll try to preface next time when I post in a thread about the role of the DM that my post is about the role of the DM.
Magnus_the_Mad 11-29-06, 07:55 PM	I skipped half of this thread after getting the general idea, so sorry if I say anything that's already been covered. Overall, I feel that the DM has majority control over everything, from allowed books/classes/races/etc. to type of campaign being played. Here's the main reason why: Amount of contribution. The DM makes the world, the people (except the players, of course), the enemies, and every other detail in the world. The DM does more work for the campaign then all the players combined (as far as I know) and should, in the end, have the most say about what should be. Now,we can't forget that the DM needs to be responsible and fair in his rulings if he wants people to continue to play in his campaign. On the other hand, many players need to swallow their pride and just go with what the DM gives them to work with, they might actually like it when they stop fighting it, tooth and nail. The general rule is for everyone to have fun, but also respect the work others put into it. For example, my players use to argue with ever little change I made, no matter why I did it. I had disallowed books and classes either because they didn't fit in my world or I felt they weren't classes I wanted PCs to have (namely, frenzied berserker and dread necromancer). Now, some of my players argued just because they wanted the option to play the class and never had any real interest in playing it. I told them I work on my campaign an average of 5-8 hours a week as well as working, plus time off to just relax (I get anxious and/or stressed real easy if I don't just walk away for a bit). No one else wanted to DM besides me for a year and a half. My roomate is now finally running another game for his other friends on fridays, and mine remains on mondays (once a week). Now lets add in how half of the players don't write or think up histories for their characters. So, I put in huge amaounts of time compared to my players and most of them don't even try to get involved in the creative process of contributing (sp?) to how the world works. So, I feel I get more say in what gets put in or out. My players now respect that decision and have even started to want more restrictions in rules, like requiring a 1 page backstory or removing about a third of the available base classes (I use most books, since I buy them all and read them first usually.). They're starting to learn what I've learned about a game with endless possibilities: You never know what you like until you try it and sometimes you've just got to go where the wind blows you and stop fighting it. Sorry for rambling on like that. As for new people being allowed in, I've always thought it should be a unanimous decision by the group, because just one player not getting along with anyone can bring the group down. But if anyone person's opinion mattered the most, it would be the person who owns the place where you game. Their place, their stuff. Now that is something i totally agree with. Planning and what not seems to get the tag of railroading by some people in this thread but they have no idea what it means. Plenty of choices should still be available to the players and lots of options for character development should also be available. Winging it works great if your group enjoys that type of thing but my group has been burned by a couple of other DMs in the past by this style so they prefer my method of actually plotting out the adventure. Not everyone enjoys this type of game but it certainly doesn't qualify it as railroading. As far as work put it, my group is also aware of the long hours I work and how much dedication I have to our fun games together so it never has been an issue as to why I get final say on what is accepted. They trust me and I don't ever abuse that trust.
Magnus_the_Mad 11-29-06, 08:34 PM	:rolleyes: If you're talking about the stuff on how to run a game, a good fraction of that is, most definitely, misguided. Just read the cheesy intro, for example. :confused: Well then that explains a lot about how you think I suppose. I see it as rules to which a game should be run, you see it as crap. Like I said before, you play a different game other than D&D then. I actually use the books and RAW, you dislike them, throw them away but still claim to run a 'fundamental' game. No, I think that the GM shares authority. Which is not the same as not having any. As a player, you won't be telling me how my npcs will react unless you use some magical means (even then, I tell you the result. All you do is describe what you want to be the desired result i.e. charm person). The same holds true about the player characters and my npcs. Is this what you mean by sharing authority? I call that utilizing game mechanics according to RAW and core. While it should almost never come into play, there does need to be a final authority in some instances and that is the role of the DM. The adjucator. How about plot authority? Your posts pretty consistently allude to the illusion of choice within a fairly tight pre-developed framework. To giving them your sand or showing them your movie instead of actually sharing the shared imagined space. Is this the case in play? Depends. Who's plot? The npcs or the characters. The players have full control over their own character and no one else. When they get cohorts or followers then they get authority over other characters. Other than that I run everything else. My posts never allude to the illusion of choice but I don't give infinite choices that feel good to the PCs all the time. You seem to be the type of player who will go out of their way to do whatever is in your power to NOT do whatever a DM may have written up or planned for a week's gaming session. That doesn't make you a good player, it makes you a problem player especially if the rest of the players are willing to work with the DM and give the story a shot. What's so hard about that? It isn't boring at all (well, depending on the plot and the details), you just seem to not have any interest in this type of game. That's what all your arguing has proved so far in my opinion. You have to go against any situation that is taken out of your hands. The case in play here is that you are trying too hard to twist my words into something you want them to be instead of comming out and saying that you hate it when the DM tells you that "A" happens and you dont' want it to. What about narrational authority? Who describes events as they happen? For a majority of the game? I do. Oh noes!!! That makes me a bad, bad man doesn't it?! Players usually describe the scene of whatever actions they are taking but they certainly won't describe the actions of the npcs unless the game rules or mechanics dictate that they do (charm, compulsion spell and effects mostly) Oh, I get it. You're thoroughly neglectingto mention the different kinds of material are at work here, however. It's one thing to write up a town in a moment of crisis or make a relationship map of NPCs or graph out a several-room dungeon and quite another to plan out where the "story" is going to go. I'm not neglecting to mention it, you are trying to hard not to comprehend it. Many different kinds of material go into a story. You're just breaking it down into every little tiny aspect that you can in a feeble attempt to dissect my DM style. To the contrary of your quote, writing "up a town in a moment of crisis" is the same thing as where the story is going to go. It's called "Planning the Adventure". Most things in an adventure are a series of events that lead to one overall story that the PCs are partaking in. Did that make it more clear for you? Probably not. So players are just fans witnessing some grand directorial masterwork? I thought they were supposed to be, y'know, helping create it. Nope, that's not what I meant at all. I direct, they improv the scene. Kinda like "Who's Line is it Anyway" where Drew Carey gives them the plot and they do with it what they want. I direct by giving them certain information that is to be presented (mostly by the npcs) and they in turn respond to that. Now think about this: If players stepping up and "stealing the show" is hands-down the best part of the game, why isn't that the entire game, then? Why isn't the game all about that? If that wonderful moment of shared creativity is really the most important and definitive thing, shouldn't everyone at the table be doing absolutely everything in their power to make that happen all the time? (And game designers should, too, but that's a topic for a different thread.) Because a DM who is worth their weight in gold will realize that just like a great novel, there needs to be highs and low, valleys and peaks and even foreshadowing in the story for there to be a story at all. It's like playing a great guitar solo (anyone see "A Year and a Half in the Life of Metallica" where Bob Rock is chastising Kirk Hammet on his solo for "The Unforgiven"? Same principle.) and getting it right. If you hit the same high note all the time it sounds like crap but if you start out low and build to a smashing crescendo then you have gold. Of course, it isn't all that simple and there is more that goes into it than simply playing a solo from a low to high note. You have to have many elements to make it all come together. Hell freakin' yes, I prefer a game where everyone actually contributes. I'd be insane not to. ME TOO!! The question is not about everyone contributing but as to what you and I think that the DM should contribute vs. the players. I can't just write that off as "style". Or, more specifically, I can't just write "style" off as something ephemeral and inconsequential. Not all approaches are equal. No, not all approaches are equal. That I will finally agree with you on. But contrary to what you think, it is a style that you are talking about. Your style is to allow the players total reign of all content. My style is more organized and structured to the liking of my players. That's a difference in style and has nothing to do with consequences. *shrug* You had more than that to say about folks who called him "too tough," is what I meant. Then say what you mean :)
CharlieRock 11-29-06, 09:05 PM	I'll try to preface next time when I post in a thread about the role of the DM that my post is about the role of the DM. Well, the role of the DM is to make the challenges in the game. Among other roles they perform. That was where you left me (and others) in the dust. ;)
starfire311 11-29-06, 09:07 PM	Like I said before, you play a different game other than D&D then. I actually use the books and RAW, you dislike them, throw them away but still claim to run a 'fundamental' game. Are you saying that you agree 100% with RAW and everyone that doesn't somehow doesn't play DnD? well then, you are either lying or an idiot your choice I guess.
HamHam 11-29-06, 09:33 PM	As a player, you won't be telling me how my npcs will react unless you use some magical means (even then, I tell you the result. All you do is describe what you want to be the desired result i.e. charm person). The same holds true about the player characters and my npcs. Is this what you mean by sharing authority? I call that utilizing game mechanics according to RAW and core. While it should almost never come into play, there does need to be a final authority in some instances and that is the role of the DM. The adjucator. Sharing authority is primarily, I would say, an out of game issue, and is about out of game issues. I don't think anyone is trying to argue that motivating NPCs is not a role that has been assigned to the DM, because that's obviously a part of the game's set up. What books to use, what things to houserule, what campaign setting to use, even inter-player conflict are out of game questions that are best resolved through consensus. On the other hand, there are also in game things that fall under player juresdiction. The primary one is backstory. In addition to that, there are many things, including NPCs, that should be up to the player to define when they deal primarily with them. This is rather nebulious, so let me provide an example: A PCs family, the personalities of the family members, even the classes of those family members, are far more that player's business than the DMs. So that indicates a group of NPCs who are, in fact, under the authority of the player to describe not the DM.
CharlieRock 11-29-06, 09:48 PM	A PCs family, the personalities of the family members, even the classes of those family members, are far more that player's business than the DMs. So that indicates a group of NPCs who are, in fact, under the authority of the player to describe not the DM. Within reason. All in-game effects based on backstory should be discussed before whomping it out. 'Look, it's just my backstory; I'm the emporer's only legitimate son. No biggee.' But, this can go on forever pointing out exceptions. So, can the DM involve the backstory of a character without that player's approval? 'The Goblin King has captured your family.' Edit: oops, I didn't say what I thought. I think a DM can use a character's backstory (to the effect that used in the example above with the goblin king) as long as it is fair. Provided a DM is fair, there should be very little in the way of player approval needed for anything.
HamHam 11-29-06, 10:19 PM	Within reason. All in-game effects based on backstory should be discussed before whomping it out. 'Look, it's just my backstory; I'm the emporer's only legitimate son. No biggee.' But, this can go on forever pointing out exceptions. So, can the DM involve the backstory of a character without that player's approval? 'The Goblin King has captured your family.' Edit: oops, I didn't say what I thought. I think a DM can use a character's backstory (to the effect that used in the example above with the goblin king) as long as it is fair. Provided a DM is fair, there should be very little in the way of player approval needed for anything. 1) One of the bigger oversites in the rules is a severe lack of a mechanical definition for things like social position. It essentially assumes that any PCs are going to be wandering murderious hobos, and any attempt to make a PC that isn't is going to run into problems. Other systems have mechanics for resolving these sorts of things. I think you could simply homebrew some sort of feat or even import an actual "Noble" class from something like Wheel of Time D20 or Star Wars d20. There's also issues of party consistancy in a situation with one of the PCs being of, for example, royal heritage because it raises serious realism issues as to why he would be running around with these people risking his, rather important, life dungeon delving and what not. 2) Something like kidnapping the PCs families is obviously something a DM can do, but probably only once, because each subsequent use just makes it pointless, and will result in nothing but players making PCs whose family are already dead. Other things though might be things that you should talk with the player about first. Simply killing a family member, for example, or, to put it in a round about way, anything that might be worse than just plain killing them. These kinds of things might mess up a PC sufficiently that they represent a major shift in the character concept, and that should not be undertaken without the player's okay.
Ongorth 11-29-06, 10:29 PM	Well, the role of the DM is to make the challenges in the game. Among other roles they perform. That was where you left me (and others) in the dust. ;) That's great. I think we all know that making challenges is a part of the game that someone has to do. Otherwise, the game would have no challenges Explain to me the part where a game with player input in and of itself lowers the challenge level as compared with one designed solely by the DM. How does DM's role in the campaign(the distribution of responsibilities required to run an effective D&D game) effect the challenge level? For every set of players that just wants loot and powers, there is a pushover DM who just wants to keep everyone happy at the expense of any semblence of challenge. Likewise, for every Gygaxian DM (Not they we really know what that means), there are players who want the toughest encounters with all dice rolled in the open, making every decision matter and every victory worth celebrating about.
a_psh 11-29-06, 10:37 PM	Okay, the point-by-point is getting tedious now, so I'm narrowing the discussion. Feel free to just repost whatever specific arguments you really, really want me, specifically, to respond to, and I will. I don't want to keep making more and more tangents, so I'm taking my posts back to a core point... If I'm playing a hackfest and I've predetermined that the dragon is going to drop Regdar to negative hp sometime during the fight and then it will "lose its last 10 hit points and keel over" (i.e. I'll pretend it had exactly enough) when Mialee casts a spell at it, I'm taking away the point of the hackfest, aren't I? So, same deal here... Whatever is the most important thing about the actual play itself absolutely positively must be shared. Shared as strongly as possible. That's what you all came for. It must never be something predetermined in prep, because then you've taken what matters most about the game and thrown it straight out into the middle of nowhere, outside of the actual game. So, if story matters to you most of all, for god's sake, don't pre-write one! If you're interested in the kinds of moral decisions characters make, don't prejudge them! Et cetera. How about the things that are totally secondary to the reason you actually came to the table? Well, you can farm all that stuff out to the players if you can, as the kill puppies for satan quote on page three suggests (lest you get confused, the thing about keeping the **** for yourself is ALL joke -- he's mocking WoD; you're supposed to share the **** because the **** is, well, it's THE ****!).
Magnus_the_Mad 11-29-06, 11:25 PM	Sharing authority is primarily, I would say, an out of game issue, and is about out of game issues. I don't think anyone is trying to argue that motivating NPCs is not a role that has been assigned to the DM, because that's obviously a part of the game's set up. What books to use, what things to houserule, what campaign setting to use, even inter-player conflict are out of game questions that are best resolved through consensus. On the other hand, there are also in game things that fall under player juresdiction. The primary one is backstory. In addition to that, there are many things, including NPCs, that should be up to the player to define when they deal primarily with them. This is rather nebulious, so let me provide an example: A PCs family, the personalities of the family members, even the classes of those family members, are far more that player's business than the DMs. So that indicates a group of NPCs who are, in fact, under the authority of the player to describe not the DM. I agree with that 100%. Nuff said :)
Magnus_the_Mad 11-29-06, 11:32 PM	That's great. I think we all know that making challenges is a part of the game that someone has to do. Otherwise, the game would have no challenges Explain to me the part where a game with player input in and of itself lowers the challenge level as compared with one designed solely by the DM. How does DM's role in the campaign(the distribution of responsibilities required to run an effective D&D game) effect the challenge level? For every set of players that just wants loot and powers, there is a pushover DM who just wants to keep everyone happy at the expense of any semblence of challenge. Likewise, for every Gygaxian DM (Not they we really know what that means), there are players who want the toughest encounters with all dice rolled in the open, making every decision matter and every victory worth celebrating about. Ok, the DM puts forth what the players are to encounter during a game session. That is the main challenge that I speak of. How does this effect the challenge level? Well, there is a big difference between a mind flayer and a band of four kobolds isn't there? Who controls the monsters? Not the players, the DM. Who controls the traps that the PCs come across? The DM. Who runs the corrupt diplomat that the PCs will have to investigate and eventually prove that they are the reason behind the string of recent murders? The DM, that's who. The DM has a LOT to do with the challenge of a game. I never said that he has EVERYTHING to do with the challenges. The players can make things as challenging as they want, but I believe the DM has more game control over the unknown (which is possibly the greatest challenge of them all) than the players.
Magnus_the_Mad 11-29-06, 11:43 PM	*Red Hand of Doom Spoiler Warning* If I'm playing a hackfest and I've predetermined that the dragon is going to drop Regdar to negative hp sometime during the fight and then it will "lose its last 10 hit points and keel over" (i.e. I'll pretend it had exactly enough) when Mialee casts a spell at it, I'm taking away the point of the hackfest, aren't I? OK, now we are getting somewhere. NEVER, ever, ever in my posts was anything mentioned about taking the dice rolls and skills out of the players hands!!! Where did you get this rediculous assumption? Look, you can write an adventure and not know what will happen to the PCs. This notion is just plain absurd and a product of your inablility to follow what has been discussed thus far. An example I have is the Red Hand of Doom. My group played the adventure and were all level 11 for the final encounter with Azar Kuul. Old Azar gave them a run for their money but they finally defeated him in the end. When the Aspect of Tiamat showed up for some payback, I totally thought the party would high tail it out of the Fane due to lack of spells and burned up resources with Azar. What did they do? They had one free round to prepare (as per the encounter) and they looked at each other and said "well, we've come this far. We go out in a blaze of glory trying to save the Elsir Vale from this thing or we run and fight another day." The majority rule was kick some butt!!! I thought they were dead for sure!! No way, the round that the aspect of Tiamat dropped the barbarian and the cleric for the final count of their lives, the rogue does the final shot that took the beast down!! The party was soooo jazzed and amazed. The rogue ran over and popped healing potions into their mouths and they healed up and rested for a spell before heading back to Brindol to claim their reward and bring news of the Red Hand's destruction. According to you, I had it all planned out that the barbarian and cleric were gonna hit the floor in round three of this fight (sitting at negative 6 and 7 hp respectively) and that the rogue was gonna get the killing blow (with a well placed sneak attack with her longbow). Are you kidding me?! What planet are you from?! The result of the combat are all based on what the players rolled for hits and damage as well as roleplaying choices they made with their characters. No one predetermined any rolls. So this statement alone tells me that you missed the mark BIG TIME on my posts man. It's a good thing you are giving up on the nit picking, you never had a clue to begin with if this is what you think a pre-written adventure is.
a_psh 11-29-06, 11:50 PM	So this statement alone tells me that you missed the mark BIG TIME on my posts man. It's a good thing you are giving up on the nit picking, you never had a clue to begin with if this is what you think a pre-written adventure is.Okay, we're still talking in completely different directions. Read the rest of my post. The part about how the same thing applies to things other than, y'know, the hacking: If you don't cripple the hacking by deciding what happens when (and I wasn't implying that you do), then you shouldn't cripple other aspects of play by doing that, either.
Magnus_the_Mad 11-29-06, 11:53 PM	Are you saying that you agree 100% with RAW and everyone that doesn't somehow doesn't play DnD? well then, you are either lying or an idiot your choice I guess. The name calling isn't called for here. Chill out and debate or don't. I never attacked you, don't do it to me. I never said that anything about RAW being 100% correct, just simply that I follow it. But someone who claims that a good portion of the DMG is poorly written and can't follow the concept of written adventure material has a hard time convincing me that they even know what D&D is or how to play it. Oh, and how is it a lie if it is my opinion? It isn't. Just because you don't accept it as truth doesn't make it a lie. My choice is that I'm an informed gamer and actually read the game rules and material before deciding that it's useless or good.
Magnus_the_Mad 11-29-06, 11:58 PM	Okay, we're still talking in completely different directions. Read the rest of my post. The part about how the same thing applies to things other than, y'know, the hacking: If you don't cripple the hacking by deciding what happens when (and I wasn't implying that you do), then you shouldn't cripple other aspects of play by doing that, either. Very well then, my brash statement is retracted. I think that this response is helping to clarify what you are getting at and believe it or not I agree to a point with what you are trying to tell me. If you wouldn't play down the hack and slash then don't play down the other aspects of the game essentially. I can buy that and I honestly believe that you can achieve that in a written adventure if you know how. You are correct about the point of the thread being forgotten and I apologize but am glad to have discussed this with someone who has made a good counter argument thus far. Can we agree to disagree on certain elements of our DMs and games and move on?
CharlieRock 11-30-06, 08:49 AM	Okay, we're still talking in completely different directions. Read the rest of my post. The part about how the same thing applies to things other than, y'know, the hacking: If you don't cripple the hacking by deciding what happens when (and I wasn't implying that you do), then you shouldn't cripple other aspects of play by doing that, either. This can be pre-planned. But, it wouldn't look anything like prearranged battle either. I use a 'social spider-web' design to show interactions between NPCs (don't try to get the tavern-keeper to intervene on your behalf with the sheriff. The sheriff is his half-brother and hates his guts.) and likely reactions to PCs (the blacksmith is dismissive towards clerics of X-Diety, he thinks they are lame). To make the 'webbing' stretch ,the NPCs form 'associations' (think of them as cliques). Then I can prepare reactions of NPCs to agents of the City Watch, Thieves Guild, and the Order of Righteous Clodhoppers. Based on various histories between these groups. I can get as elaborate as I want (bearing in mind the PCs are going to toast half of it ,when they reveal <whatever their plan is>), or simply 'The thieves guild has paid off the Watchmen for so long, they are great allies. And confident they will not need the PCs services for recovering the treasure'. Whereas my battle plans look like a roster and set of SOPs for certain squads and who is sitting where at what times. This is sometimes why I say that running combat is easier (until I actually have to look up all the combat rules, then I change my mind). :D
starfire311 11-30-06, 10:55 AM	The name calling isn't called for here. Chill out and debate or don't. I never attacked you, don't do it to me. Nah I wasn't calling you an idiot, I was saying you were lying about following RAW, the only way you wouldn't be lying is if you are an idiot, and I knew that wasn't true. I never said that anything about RAW being 100% correct, just simply that I follow it. But someone who claims that a good portion of the DMG is poorly written and can't follow the concept of written adventure material has a hard time convincing me that they even know what D&D is or how to play it. a good portion of the DMG is poorly written, and 90% if not more of the DMG is guidelines and suggestions. Just because I don't follow the DCI penalty guidelines when I play magic at home doesnt mean I am not playing magic. Oh, and how is it a lie if it is my opinion? It isn't. Just because you don't accept it as truth doesn't make it a lie. My choice is that I'm an informed gamer and actually read the game rules and material before deciding that it's useless or good. It is a lie because you dont follow RAW, and claiming to do so is lying. Saying you follow RAW is not an opinion, it is a statement, and in this case it is a false statement, therefore it is a lie. I knew you werent an idiot, so therefore I was calling you a liar. Although this statement has me a bit boggled I never said that anything about RAW being 100% correct, just simply that I follow it. So, you admit that RAW is wrong and yet you still follow it, so maybe you werent lying after all. If you still follow the parts that a glaringly wrong then perhaps, you do follow RAW and I feel very sorry for you and your players.
Ongorth 11-30-06, 04:12 PM	Ok, the DM puts forth what the players are to encounter during a game session. That is the main challenge that I speak of. How does this effect the challenge level? Well, there is a big difference between a mind flayer and a band of four kobolds isn't there? Who controls the monsters? Not the players, the DM. Who controls the traps that the PCs come across? The DM. Who runs the corrupt diplomat that the PCs will have to investigate and eventually prove that they are the reason behind the string of recent murders? The DM, that's who. The DM has a LOT to do with the challenge of a game. I never said that he has EVERYTHING to do with the challenges. The players can make things as challenging as they want, but I believe the DM has more game control over the unknown (which is possibly the greatest challenge of them all) than the players. Where is the part about how the "DM as God" game is inherantly more challenging then the "DM as Supervisor" style? While its nice to claim that "Old School", "DM-centric" or "Gygaxian" games are more challenging then those that embrace a partially (or fully) collaborative process, you can't summon even a shred of evidence to support thise because it doesn't exist. Because DM Role has no relationship to challenge level of the game. It might be in the DM's Role to SET the challenge level of the game. The challenge level of the game can vary throughout various DM roles. But a DM-centric game can easily be Monty Haul and a Player-centric game can easily be a TPK fest, should those be the whims of the participants. As such, I took exception to this comment At least there are some DMs out there that are not afraid to take off the kid gloves and present a challenge to the party every now and then while maintaining a balanced game. as it implied that only a "Gygaxian" DM could manage such a feat, one that "Communal" games do all the time.
Kursk 11-30-06, 04:35 PM	As such, I took exception to this comment as it implied that only a "Gygaxian" DM could manage such a feat, one that "Communal" games do all the time. I'm not clear on what a "communal" game means in the D&D sense. That being said, a DM should provide the setting, encounters, interaction & reaction, the world, etc. The "planned" encounters should be balanced. If the players want to "color outside the lines" and hunt down an Ancient Red Dragon at 1st level that's their choice.
Ongorth 11-30-06, 04:40 PM	"Communal" was being used to loosely refer to a game that does not follow a strict traditional DM/Player dynamic. As in, players control their PCs, DM controls everything else, no exceptions. This could range from a game with slightly loose creative boundries or games with shared world creation, to games with shared rules arbitration, to the more radical DM-less games that give Lord of Illusions nightmares.
Kursk 11-30-06, 06:04 PM	"Communal" was being used to loosely refer to a game ... Okay, got it. Thanks.
pres_man 11-30-06, 07:53 PM	So, I was discussing this issue with my wife the other day. I asked her, "How much authority should a DM have? Should he have the right to limit what texts are used?" She answered, "Yes." :thinks: "Why do you say that? I never tell people what books they can use?" (she plays in a game I DM) She responded, "Because if I was the DM, I wouldn't want to deal with something I wasn't familiar with." We discussed it some more and basically I came away with the following conclusions. Working under the Pres_man Postulate (P. P.) (thanks CharlieRock), where the DM and the players are all mature individuals, who are competent and not trying to one up each other. Who are all present to have a good time, and have a good understanding of game balance. Then the DM should not have any more say about how the game is set up (though he does have more about how encounters and such is designed) then anyone else, what I mean by this is what types of classes and books are available. What races can be used as PCs, starting level, ability generation, and campaign setting (Eberron, Greyhawk, homebrew, etc). All players should have equal say, and a consensus should be obtained. Now assuming we are not using the P. P. but only working under the On_the_wings_of_TPK's Axiom (? don't remember my different levels) that we have competent DMs, but not necessarily competent players. Then a DM may need to exert more control over the game set-up. This is because the players may not be able to competently provide their fair share of the decision making in these conditions. Yet even in these a DM is well advised to only unilaterally make the barest need decisions. Now if we are working outside of On_the_wings_of_TPK's Axiom (O. A.), then in those cases, the closer to the RAW the better. Houserules should be very strickly limited, with DMs suggesting and players Oking. Generally it is prefered that only the core rules be used. This is to aid the struggling DM to have an easier time grasping the rules, and to limit the possible abuse (possibly unintential) by a less then ideal DM. My wife explained that given her understanding, if she was the DM, she would want to limit everything to the core rules. This is because she doesn't study the rules to the degree I do, and she would be nervous about making mistakes, and would view having to deal with extra stuff as too much hassel. Humorously she also pointed out that I have told people No before. "When?" "When Jennifer asked to be a dragon, you told her no." "No, I didn't!" "Yes, you did." "No, what probably happened is I explained the rules for LA and Racial HD and ECL and how she would have to be several levels higher than she was going to be." "Yeah, but she didn't understand that stuff, you told her no." "Well, I probably said, 'in other words, no.' But that wasn't me telling her no, that was the rules."
Magnus_the_Mad 11-30-06, 08:21 PM	a good portion of the DMG is poorly written, and 90% if not more of the DMG is guidelines and suggestions. Just because I don't follow the DCI penalty guidelines when I play magic at home doesnt mean I am not playing magic. That is a gross exaggeration if I ever heard one? 90% is guidelines and suggestions? I would agree that a portion of the DMG is guidlines and suggestions, but not 90%. If you wanted to tell me that you don't follow 90% of what the DMG suggests then I can buy that too, unfortunately I wouldn't consider what you play too much like D&D. People can give me lines about what the game means by saying "whatever is fun for you" and that's all good and well. I believe that. But there are some pretty darn good rules and guidelines in the DMG that are not poorly written and that's what I follow. It is a lie because you dont follow RAW, and claiming to do so is lying. Saying you follow RAW is not an opinion, it is a statement, and in this case it is a false statement, therefore it is a lie. I knew you werent an idiot, so therefore I was calling you a liar. So what are my house rules then? What did I modify in my last game from the RAW? Hmmm... sounds to me like you are speculating. I think a lot of gamers follow RAW but have their own house rules to augment them. Following 100%? Maybe some do. But yes, if you want nit pick to make yourself feel better about this then I'll freely admit that I don't follow 100% raw. I'd say that I follow 95% and that is without exaggeration. So, you admit that RAW is wrong and yet you still follow it, so maybe you werent lying after all. If you still follow the parts that a glaringly wrong then perhaps, you do follow RAW and I feel very sorry for you and your players. So where did I say that 100% of RAW was wrong? Oh... that's right. I didn't. I can make my own coherent thoughts and write them down, thank you. I don't need you telling me what I said. You are just taking the topic to stupid extremes. What you think is wrong in the DMG I may not, but that doesn't make it wrong or stupid on my part. I don't need you to feel sorry for me or my players in the slightest. You neither know me or my players so your statement matters little in this discussion.
Magnus_the_Mad 11-30-06, 08:21 PM	So, I was discussing this issue with my wife the other day. I asked her, "How much authority should a DM have? Should he have the right to limit what texts are used?" She answered, "Yes." :thinks: "Why do you say that? I never tell people what books they can use?" (she plays in a game I DM) She responded, "Because if I was the DM, I wouldn't want to deal with something I wasn't familiar with." We discussed it some more and basically I came away with the following conclusions. Working under the Pres_man Postulate (P. P.) (thanks CharlieRock), where the DM and the players are all mature individuals, who are competent and not trying to one up each other. Who are all present to have a good time, and have a good understanding of game balance. Then the DM should not have any more say about how the game is set up (though he does have more about how encounters and such is designed) then anyone else, what I mean by this is what types of classes and books are available. What races can be used as PCs, starting level, ability generation, and campaign setting (Eberron, Greyhawk, homebrew, etc). All players should have equal say, and a consensus should be obtained. Now assuming we are not using the P. P. but only working under the On_the_wings_of_TPK's Axiom (? don't remember my different levels) that we have competent DMs, but not necessarily competent players. Then a DM may need to exert more control over the game set-up. This is because the players may not be able to competently provide their fair share of the decision making in these conditions. Yet even in these a DM is well advised to only unilaterally make the barest need decisions. Now if we are working outside of On_the_wings_of_TPK's Axiom (O. A.), then in those cases, the closer to the RAW the better. Houserules should be very strickly limited, with DMs suggesting and players Oking. Generally it is prefered that only the core rules be used. This is to aid the struggling DM to have an easier time grasping the rules, and to limit the possible abuse (possibly unintential) by a less then ideal DM. My wife explained that given her understanding, if she was the DM, she would want to limit everything to the core rules. This is because she doesn't study the rules to the degree I do, and she would be nervous about making mistakes, and would view having to deal with extra stuff as too much hassel. Humorously she also pointed out that I have told people No before. "When?" "When Jennifer asked to be a dragon, you told her no." "No, I didn't!" "Yes, you did." "No, what probably happened is I explained the rules for LA and Racial HD and ECL and how she would have to be several levels higher than she was going to be." "Yeah, but she didn't understand that stuff, you told her no." "Well, I probably said, 'in other words, no.' But that wasn't me telling her no, that was the rules." Too funny. Sounds like the comedy between me and my wife sometimes :D
Magnus_the_Mad 11-30-06, 08:22 PM	Okay, got it. Thanks. ouch :smirk:
Kursk 11-30-06, 08:54 PM	ouch :smirk: :confused:
LiefKarakse 11-30-06, 09:00 PM	Not sure how much this has to do with the topic, but ... I would say generally it best to have both roll-playing and role-playing involved. For myself, I find it interesting to use the roll from the social skills to help me direct how to role-play the situation. For example, say my bard along with the group came to see the king and queen. I declare my bard will address the king and queen and try to smooze them, I then roll my diplomacy check only to get a 1. I'm not very high level so that basically means I totally screwed up my effort. My character then says, "Why thank you, your highnesses for seeing us. Before I begin, I would like to say, Queen, you should see to your tailor, he has done a bad job and you look quite fat in that dress. ..." It is necessary to at the very least to discuss the content of the discussion. Just saying, "I talk to him." really doesn't mean much. About what? The weather, great you spend an hour talking to an NPC about the weather and how his crops are doing. I don't think it is totally necessary to get super incharacter, but you should be able to describe the content your character is discussing. well would it be ok if i said something along the lines of "i greet him" or i introduce myself"?
Magnus_the_Mad 11-30-06, 09:19 PM	ouch :smirk: Eh, your response seemed a little bit on the side of "oh, ok" to his statemtent is all I was getting at.
Ongorth 11-30-06, 10:33 PM	Eh, your response seemed a little bit on the side of "oh, ok" to his statemtent is all I was getting at. This response helps explain to me a great deal about your viewpoint.
Magnus_the_Mad 12-01-06, 12:22 AM	This response helps explain to me a great deal about your viewpoint. Glad I could help. This response helps explain your viewpoint on D&D: I fail to realize what the game's challenge level has to do with the DM's role. Yep. Tells volumes man. If you can't sort that one single sentence of yours out rationally without digging so deep that you wind up in China, then I guess you don't get the role of the DM at all.
pres_man 12-01-06, 12:27 AM	I actually think it is the other way around. The DM's role has more to do with the challenge level, then the challenge level has to do with the DM's role.
HamHam 12-01-06, 01:12 AM	Challenge level has nothing to do with the DM's role. As long as something is running the monsters you could just randomly select things from the MM and it would result in a challenging, or un-challenging, game entirely dependant on what CRs came up relative to the party.
Greg K 12-01-06, 02:03 AM	Working under the Pres_man Postulate (P. P.) (thanks CharlieRock), where the DM and the players are all mature individuals, who are competent and not trying to one up each other. Who are all present to have a good time, and have a good understanding of game balance. Then the DM should not have any more say about how the game is set up (though he does have more about how encounters and such is designed) then anyone else, what I mean by this is what types of classes and books are available. What races can be used as PCs, starting level, ability generation, and campaign setting (Eberron, Greyhawk, homebrew, etc). All players should have equal say, and a consensus should be obtained. And, I respectfully disagree. It is not about maturity, balance competency and trying to one up each other (or at least it should not be). A bad DM is a bad DM whether they place restrictions or not. A Good DM is still a good DM whether or not they place restrictions on content- even if the restrictions are placed upon a group that is mature, competent and in which nobody is trying to one up each other. A good DM knows that what is not included is just as important as what is included in determining the flavor of the campaign setting. Now, if the players don't like certain restrictions, it may just mean that the DM is just wrong for that particuliar group and vice versa. At which point, the DM may need to make concessions, find one or more new players, or let someone else run a game. Then again, the disatisfied player(s) may need to find another DM or group. However, coming from a group where four of the six players are talented DMs, I tend to give the DM the benefit of the doubt. Plus, I have reservations about a player that refused to play simply, because their favorite race, class, feat or whatever was restricted. Instead of being concerned about what race, class, or book the DM does or does not allowed, I would be more concerned with how the DM handles the game and the world. 1) Is the DM a fair and consistant arbiter of the rules? 2) Has the DM actually thought about the setting and worked out the details (cultures, major NPCs, and instutions/organizations)? Do the physical laws of the world remain consistant? For myself, this is an important factor. I want to know that the DM put forethought into the world. 3) Does the DM actually work with the players to fit their characters into the world? What affect (if any) do the cultures have on the classes found within the specific culture? Are certain classes restricted to certain cultures and/or organizations? Are certain classes within specific cultures actually variant classes (as per the PHB, DMG, and Unearthed Arcana). 4) Does the DM have a carefully crafted plot (if one actually exists) that must be adhered to at all costs? It is supposed to be the characters story not the DMs story. The character's story is determined by how they interact with the world around them and the choices they make. If the players don't go after the major villain that the DM had planned, hey the villain's plan still happen. The result of the villain's plan might be that the world goes "up in flames" (if the villain's plans were on that scale) and things come back to bite the players in the behind. Then again, perhaps the villain's plans have no far reaching repercussions or there is not major villain until the PC's **** off the wrong person. 5) How does the DM handle the characters going and doing the unexpected? My belief is that the players should be able to explore the world so let them go where they want. 6) Are the sessions enjoyable! If so, it doesn't matter that I could not play my favorite class, race or whatever.
Magnus_the_Mad 12-01-06, 02:42 AM	Challenge level has nothing to do with the DM's role. As long as something is running the monsters you could just randomly select things from the MM and it would result in a challenging, or un-challenging, game entirely dependant on what CRs came up relative to the party. That is a very good point. But what about tossing in the little extras to make the encounter more challenging (or scaling it down for less of a challenge)? Say, for example, instead of just fighting a fire giant or two, the party has to fight the fire giant(s) across a lava pit on a thin ledge that requires a balance check if they move more than half speed, all the while avioding projectiles being thrown by said giants. The DM would come up with that right? Maybe I'm just not reading people's responses correctly and I will freely admit that, but the players don't come up with the where, when, how, why and what they fight every time do they? That's what I mean by the role of the DM determines the challenges and nothing more than that. Tougher DMs will add more things to the encounters to make then tougher and the same holds true with other types of DMs ("Monty Haul" DMs for example). To the contrary, if the players want to go into a fiery mountain and look for that dangerous ledge to pick a fight with a couple of fire giants on, then be my guest. I don't think that it's right to deny them if that is what they want.
HamHam 12-01-06, 03:00 AM	That is a very good point. But what about tossing in the little extras to make the encounter more challenging (or scaling it down for less of a challenge)? Say, for example, instead of just fighting a fire giant or two, the party has to fight the fire giant(s) across a lava pit on a thin ledge that requires a balance check if they move more than half speed, all the while avioding projectiles being thrown by said giants. The DM would come up with that right? Maybe I'm just not reading people's responses correctly and I will freely admit that, but the players don't come up with the where, when, how, why and what they fight every time do they? That's what I mean by the role of the DM determines the challenges and nothing more than that. Tougher DMs will add more things to the encounters to make then tougher and the same holds true with other types of DMs ("Monty Haul" DMs for example). To the contrary, if the players want to go into a fiery mountain and look for that dangerous ledge to pick a fight with a couple of fire giants on, then be my guest. I don't think that it's right to deny them if that is what they want. There are programs out there that can generate you a random dungeon easily enough. Some of them can even make it seem consistant, and have all kinds of terrain effects. Any meaningful discussion on a DM's role should be about what it is that the DM can do that, say, the NWN AI can't.
Magnus_the_Mad 12-01-06, 03:55 AM	There are programs out there that can generate you a random dungeon easily enough. Some of them can even make it seem consistant, and have all kinds of terrain effects. Any meaningful discussion on a DM's role should be about what it is that the DM can do that, say, the NWN AI can't. But wouldn't the DM have to sit down and at least put the effort into having the dungeon generated then read over it before running it? Why would the players be doing this? In a sense, isn't comming up with the adventure material (no matter how you choose to do it) the DM's role? I have rarely played a game where the DM has done next to no prep before the gaming session began and even if they were running a written campaign, they had to read and understand how the events would unfold so that they could be prepared for the actions that the PCs take. That's the DM presenting a challenge for the party isn't it? What I mean is, the DM chooses the challenges that the players will face in the end don't they? Then why would the position of DM not have anything to do with the challenge of the game? If no one is there to present the challenge for the players who want to play, then you have no game.
Ongorth 12-01-06, 08:05 AM	Yep. Tells volumes man. If you can't sort that one single sentence of yours out rationally without digging so deep that you wind up in China, then I guess you don't get the role of the DM at all. That's nice. Explain it to me then. Tell me how "Gygaxian" DMing has an inherently different level of challenge then other forms of DMing. Because it doesn't. DM role is not related to challenge level.
Comus 12-01-06, 09:36 AM	That's nice. Explain it to me then. Tell me how "Gygaxian" DMing has an inherently different level of challenge then other forms of DMing. Because it doesn't. DM role is not related to challenge level. I've often heard the word "Gygaxian" leveled at DMs that use Quest/Geas, inescapable death traps, and monsters far more difficult than the party can handle - all while giving characters only a minimum of equipment and experience. In that context, it would have a different level of challenge. Not, of course, that I'm saying anything against Gygax. I've never met him, but have heard he's a really nice guy.
CharlieRock 12-01-06, 09:40 AM	Challenge level has nothing to do with the DM's role. As long as something is running the monsters you could just randomly select things from the MM and it would result in a challenging, or un-challenging, game entirely dependant on what CRs came up relative to the party. But ,why would I have to fight all these monsters? Just becasue they are there. :rolleyes: Not hardly, man. The DM sets the challenge because they place the reason to the monsters being. Besides, I can make a squad of kobolds deadlier then a wyvern, by playing them intelligently. Something some randomizer doesn't do.
Magnus_the_Mad 12-01-06, 10:06 AM	That's nice. Explain it to me then. Tell me how "Gygaxian" DMing has an inherently different level of challenge then other forms of DMing. Because it doesn't. DM role is not related to challenge level. "Gygaxian" is different than "Monty Haul" by a long shot. Gygaxian is very difficult from my experience with lots of traps, overwhelming odds and real brain twister puzzles and riddles to figure out with little pay off at times while Monty Haul is kill one creature, inherit a kingdom (yes, I exaggerated). Totally different types of challenge levels presented by the DM. DM role has everything to do with the challenge level.
CharlieRock 12-01-06, 10:17 AM	"Gygaxian" is different than "Monty Haul" by a long shot. Gygaxian is very difficult from my experience with lots of traps, overwhelming odds and real brain twister puzzles and riddles to figure out with little pay off at times while Monty Haul is kill one creature, inherit a kingdom (yes, I exaggerated). Totally different types of challenge levels presented by the DM. DM role has everything to do with the challenge level. Although, KoDT's B.A. strikes me as somewhat a mix of both. His players have Hackmasters +12s, Crossbow Bolts of Destruction, and a seeming neverending supply of potions and scrolls. Yet, Bob,Dave, and Brian are continuously getting killed off by very 'adversarial' DMing. :D
starfire311 12-01-06, 11:29 AM	That is a gross exaggeration if I ever heard one? 90% is guidelines and suggestions? I would agree that a portion of the DMG is guidlines and suggestions, but not 90%. If you wanted to tell me that you don't follow 90% of what the DMG suggests then I can buy that too, unfortunately I wouldn't consider what you play too much like D&D. People can give me lines about what the game means by saying "whatever is fun for you" and that's all good and well. I believe that. But there are some pretty darn good rules and guidelines in the DMG that are not poorly written and that's what I follow. at least 90% of it is guidelines, you would be hard pressed I think to find something that isnt really jsut a guideline in the DMG, guidelines on how to create encounters and award xp, guidelines on magic item creation, guidelines on campaign world creation, adn NPC and PC wealth guidelines, and suggetions on how to handle problem players, guidelines on weather... the Meat of the DnD core rules is in the PHB. So what are my house rules then? I am going to assume you allow Monks to be proficient in unarmed strikes. What did I modify in my last game from the RAW? I dont know but I would wager you did something different. So where did I say that 100% of RAW was wrong? Oh... that's right. I didn't. You said that you follow RAW and if someone doesnt then they are not playing DnD. or more exactly you said... Like I said before, you play a different game other than D&D then. I actually use the books and RAW, you dislike them, throw them away but still claim to run a 'fundamental' game. you somehow got the idea that if someone say doesn't like the wealth guidelines and decides to run either a higher wealth game or lower wealth game then they are not playing DnD... or are the Wealth guide lines not part of RAW... this can go for just about ever topic the DMG covers. Say I dont like the weather rules so I change those, am I no longer playing DnD, or the magic item rules or just about anything in the DMG.
CharlieRock 12-01-06, 12:56 PM	you somehow got the idea that if someone say doesn't like the wealth guidelines and decides to run either a higher wealth game or lower wealth game then they are not playing DnD... or are the Wealth guide lines not part of RAW... this can go for just about ever topic the DMG covers. Say I dont like the weather rules so I change those, am I no longer playing DnD, or the magic item rules or just about anything in the DMG. Naw, that was applied to a comment made about a 'good fraction' of the DMG. To most people, a 'good fraction' is over half. Mathematically ,if you chucked out half (or over) the rules, and filled with whatever was handy, then your game is made up more of whatever was handy then D&D . Therefore it can be said that you are no longer playing D&D(since it more resembles whatever was handy).See? Not, some minor variance about wealth rules. Let's keep this strawman free, for now.
starfire311 12-01-06, 01:15 PM	Naw, that was applied to a comment made about a 'good fraction' of the DMG. To most people, a 'good fraction' is over half. Mathematically ,if you chucked out half (or over) the rules, and filled with whatever was handy, then your game is made up more of whatever was handy then D&D . Therefore it can be said that you are no longer playing D&D(since it more resembles whatever was handy).See? Not, some minor variance about wealth rules. Let's keep this strawman free, for now. But mathematically you aren't throwing out half the rules, if you considor core to be PHB, MM, DMG and XPH, and you throw out 80% of the DMG, and 20% of the XPH, and keep 100% of the PHB, and MM you are still using 75% of the Core rules, and you are either replacing or discarding 25%, you are still playing DnD IMO. I could cut/replace from the DMG, the wealth rules, the magic item rules, the Epic rules, the experience award rules, the encounter generation rules, and many more rules all at the same time and it would still be DnD, I could easily cut 80-90% of that book and replace it with what I think would apply better to my campaign world, and I still think I could call it DnD and I doubt any of my playes would worry about it, as a matter of fact I already don't use most of those rules, still use the magic item rules, only because I havent come up with a system that I like more, and that isnt too much of a headache. The bulk of what makes DnD, DnD, is found in the PHB. As a DM, the only must have book for me is the PHB.
CharlieRock 12-01-06, 01:31 PM	But mathematically you aren't throwing out half the rules, if you considor core to be PHB, MM, DMG and XPH, and you throw out 80% of the DMG, and 20% of the XPH, and keep 100% of the PHB, and MM you are still using 75% of the Core rules, and you are either replacing or discarding 25%, you are still playing DnD IMO. I could cut/replace from the DMG, the wealth rules, the magic item rules, the Epic rules, the experience award rules, the encounter generation rules, and many more rules all at the same time and it would still be DnD, I could easily cut 80-90% of that book and replace it with what I think would apply better to my campaign world, and I still think I could call it DnD and I doubt any of my playes would worry about it, as a matter of fact I already don't use most of those rules, still use the magic item rules, only because I havent come up with a system that I like more, and that isnt too much of a headache. The bulk of what makes DnD, DnD, is found in the PHB. As a DM, the only must have book for me is the PHB. That's a lot of cutting and pasting. Besides, I could come up with a math equation showing that throwing out 90% of the DMG will amount to more then 50% of the game. What is an XPH? Don't try to pin 'you use all the RAW' on me, now. I chucked out the entire planes system and rewrote it to make (more) sense. By number of pages that was a significant portion, but only an Nth of a (small) fraction of the game, provided you don't go cross-planes that often (we don't). However, unless you were in a low-magic world, magic items would be a significant factor to a game of D&D. Making the smaller number of pages representing a higher % of the game. And, if you totally rewrote the XP tables, that is an even higher % of the game. Combined with the rest, and you can say that your game is a higher percentage <Yours>, then D&D. That's fine. D&D is not PnP RPG. It is one version. If your version differs from it to a degree that it more resembles something else, say that. Not 'I'm playing D&D'. Especially trying to convince someone that not using the D&D rules is still D&D. :confused: Edit: Unless your playing AD&D :P
Ongorth 12-01-06, 04:16 PM	"Gygaxian" is different than "Monty Haul" by a long shot. Gygaxian is very difficult from my experience with lots of traps, overwhelming odds and real brain twister puzzles and riddles to figure out with little pay off at times while Monty Haul is kill one creature, inherit a kingdom (yes, I exaggerated). Totally different types of challenge levels presented by the DM. DM role has everything to do with the challenge level. Why are you explaining me to things I already know? You are telling me how "DM Personality" or "DM Outlook" effect challenge level. That's nice. In a communal game, "Group Personality" or "Group Outlook" effect the challenge level of the game in an identical matter. In Ham-Hams "DM-BOT 6,000", the level of difficulty the settings on the hypothetical program change the challenge level. The change in the DM's role does not. How does the "DM Role" effect challenge level?
pres_man 12-01-06, 05:36 PM	A Good DM is still a good DM whether or not they place restrictions on content- even if the restrictions are placed upon a group that is mature, competent and in which nobody is trying to one up each other. I think you misunderstood me. I wasn't saying restrictions are signs of bad DMs. I was saying unilaterally deciding restrictions tend to be signs of bad DMs. A DM that respects the other players (frankly anyone who respects others) is going to discuss any possible restrictions with the players. And if the players respect the DM they will be willing to take his word on something if he doesn't want to "give it away", at that moment. A good DM knows that what is not included is just as important as what is included in determining the flavor of the campaign setting. Indeed, but an even better DM knows that developing a flavor for a compaign that the players are going to find interesting is extremely important. Now, if the players don't like certain restrictions, it may just mean that the DM is just wrong for that particuliar group and vice versa. At which point, the DM may need to make concessions, find one or more new players, or let someone else run a game. Then again, the disatisfied player(s) may need to find another DM or group. Again, we are talking about a game where everyone is mature and respectful. A player that says, "Do what I want or I'm leaving!" is neither. Just as a DM that says, "You don't like it, then go find another DM!" Both are immature responses. Occassionally it may be necessary to make such responses when the other person is immature, but this should never be an ideal choice. 1) Is the DM a fair and consistant arbiter of the rules? And a DM that listens to players' opinions on how the game will be set up demonstates that right off the bat. A DM that says, "It's my way or the highway.", indicates they may not be open to discussion and thus may not be a fair arbiter. 2) Has the DM actually thought about the setting and worked out the details (cultures, major NPCs, and instutions/organizations)? Do the physical laws of the world remain consistant? For myself, this is an important factor. I want to know that the DM put forethought into the world. To me, a general idea is enough, as long as things are consistent. I don't care if the DM didn't have the kingdom on the island in the ocean already decided on, but if we visit it once, it better be the same if we visit again (as long as there has not been some take over by others). 3) Does the DM actually work with the players to fit their characters into the world? What affect (if any) do the cultures have on the classes found within the specific culture? Are certain classes restricted to certain cultures and/or organizations? Are certain classes within specific cultures actually variant classes (as per the PHB, DMG, and Unearthed Arcana). Which is what I am talking about. A DM that decides that you can't be a druid if you came from a city, despite a player explaining how there is lots of animals that live in the city, is just a poor DM usually. There is nothing wrong with a DM asking a player to justify their choices, or to ask the player to help the DM by perhaps avoiding other choices ("Warlocks in this game are all evil, maybe you could play a different class, Hexblade?"). 4) Does the DM have a carefully crafted plot (if one actually exists) that must be adhered to at all costs? Right, riding the rails tends to be bad. 5) How does the DM handle the characters going and doing the unexpected? My belief is that the players should be able to explore the world so let them go where they want. I agree. Though, I believe we should all remember it is a game. Saying that it is ok for a group to stumble into an ancient dragon's lair and die because we were trying to be "realistic" and the dragon was there is silly. It is a game, this is not some Fantasy World Simuliation. Personally, if a DM is dropping hints about a red dragon, and then TPKs because the party followed the hints, that is a sign of a bad DM. The DM decided what hints to drop, in that decision the responsibility of the party following them is theirs. Unless the DM is dropping like over 100 hints of things, and the party decided to follow the one about the ancient dragon. 6) Are the sessions enjoyable! If so, it doesn't matter that I could not play my favorite class, race or whatever. But could it have been MORE enjoyable with playing your favorite race? Consider this, a player asks to play a goblin. The DM thinks about how a goblin is going to be harassed when it goes to towns and it is going to annoy the other players and all that and says, "NO!" What the DM does not realize is the player had already thought of that, and was planning on being a bard with max ranks in disguise and was going to get the Disguise Self and Alter Self spells for those situations. A great opportunity for the player is denied by a DM who can't concieve of a way to get around a little difficulty. Unusually classes and races are great opportunities for more roleplaying, and to arbitrarily limit them, especially in the case of skilled players, is often a bad idea.
Greg K 12-01-06, 10:03 PM	Indeed, but an even better DM knows that developing a flavor for a compaign that the players are going to find interesting is extremely important. [/QUOTE] And an even better DM than that knows the types of campaigns that they 1) find interesting and 2)enjoy or do not enjoy running. If the players want something that the DM does not find interesting or does not enjoy he should let someone else run. I personally will not run campaigns that are heavily dungeon crawls, "kitchen sink" or DM vs Player campaigns as neither holds my interest and I find both rather boring. Same goes for campaigns with heavy optimization rather than organic growth. Again, we are talking about a game where everyone is mature and respectful. A player that says, "Do what I want or I'm leaving!" is neither. Just as a DM that says, "You don't like it, then go find another DM!" Both are immature responses. Occassionally it may be necessary to make such responses when the other person is immature, but this should never be an ideal choice. Granted, it shouldn't be an ideal choice. And a DM that listens to players' opinions on how the game will be set up demonstates that right off the bat. A DM that says, "It's my way or the highway.", indicates they may not be open to discussion and thus may not be a fair arbiter. Listens, but is under no obligation to make the changes. To me, a general idea is enough, as long as things are consistent. I don't care if the DM didn't have the kingdom on the island in the ocean already decided on, but if we visit it once, it better be the same if we visit again (as long as there has not been some take over by others). I care if it is a logical place where a PC can hail from. I want enough information about the cultures of the DMs world so that I can create a character feels as if they belong in the world and differentiates the characters from different cultures with the campaign let alone those of DM Joe's campaign down the street. Well though out cultures are much more interesting and inspiring to me than a random assortment of non-human races. Which is what I am talking about. A DM that decides that you can't be a druid if you came from a city, despite a player explaining how there is lots of animals that live in the city, is just a poor DM usually. Lol, in my current campaign it won't happen, because the druid class is specific to two wilderness based cultures. There is nothing wrong with a DM asking a player to justify their choices, or to ask the player to help the DM by perhaps avoiding other choices ("Warlocks in this game are all evil, maybe you could play a different class, Hexblade?"). I agree. Though, I believe we should all remember it is a game. Saying that it is ok for a group to stumble into an ancient dragon's lair and die because we were trying to be "realistic" and the dragon was there is silly. It is a game, this is not some Fantasy World Simuliation. Personally, if a DM is dropping hints about a red dragon, and then TPKs because the party followed the hints, that is a sign of a bad DM. The DM decided what hints to drop, in that decision the responsibility of the party following them is theirs. Unless the DM is dropping like over 100 hints of things, and the party decided to follow the one about the ancient dragon. Yeah, however, if the DM has already worked out the information about the region, the characters from that region would know about the dragon and its reputation. A PC with knowledge (region) for that region should reveal the info to the player or god forbid the players should talk with NPCs. Plus, there should be signs around the lair for the players. Plenty of ways to have the dragon there and the players knowing to avoid it. But could it have been MORE enjoyable with playing your favorite race? And again, maybe it would have been less. Consider this, a player asks to play a goblin. The DM thinks about how a goblin is going to be harassed when it goes to towns and it is going to annoy the other players and all that and says, "NO!" What the DM does not realize is the player had already thought of that, and was planning on being a bard with max ranks in disguise and was going to get the Disguise Self and Alter Self spells for those situations. A great opportunity for the player is denied by a DM who can't concieve of a way to get around a little difficulty. Unusually classes and races are great opportunities for more roleplaying, and to arbitrarily limit them, especially in the case of skilled players, is often a bad idea. If the dm just presents the races as vanilla human (or any other race) without any real thought about the cultures-it is going to be same ole boring thing. However, interesting cultures (and I don't think WOTC makes interesting cultures for their worlds or encourages it in their products), can make the normal races interesting without needing a lot of nonhuman or template races. This is is why the DM working out cultures and how these cultures might create variants of the races and classes is important to me. Of course, this is my opinion and others may disagree.
Magnus_the_Mad 12-02-06, 02:29 AM	Why are you explaining me to things I already know? You are telling me how "DM Personality" or "DM Outlook" effect challenge level. That's nice. In a communal game, "Group Personality" or "Group Outlook" effect the challenge level of the game in an identical matter. In Ham-Hams "DM-BOT 6,000", the level of difficulty the settings on the hypothetical program change the challenge level. The change in the DM's role does not. How does the "DM Role" effect challenge level? Ok, this question has been pointless for quite some time. The horse is dead, you can stop beating it now. Really, what does it matter about "the role"? Do you really sit around the table and say to your players "just because I'm sitting here doesn't mean that I have a bearing on how challenging your game is going to be tonight"? Well that is a false statement. If someone else were sitting there the game might be more or less of a challenge. Your question has no importance in the grand scheme of the game. The DM has ONE role and that is the person running the game. Running the game entails all of which other posters have mentioned thus far. No one is wrong or right here but you are hung up on this topic and I'm not the only one who can't figure out why which means your point is failing to be made. Respond if you wish, but if it is the same boring drivel you have been spouting I won't bother responding to you.
Magnus_the_Mad 12-02-06, 02:49 AM	at least 90% of it is guidelines, you would be hard pressed I think to find something that isnt really jsut a guideline in the DMG, guidelines on how to create encounters and award xp, guidelines on magic item creation, guidelines on campaign world creation, adn NPC and PC wealth guidelines, and suggetions on how to handle problem players, guidelines on weather... the Meat of the DnD core rules is in the PHB. Your opinion then. If you ignore 90% of the content of the DMG then why even purchase or use anything out of the book? Create your own DMs book and call it "D&D The Way I Think it Should Be". I am going to assume you allow Monks to be proficient in unarmed strikes. Yes, because it is in the RAW of PHB 3.5. It is called the "unarmed strike" class ability described on page 41. I believe it reads "Monks are highly trained in fighting unarmed, giving them considerable advantages when doing so." If that isn't enough, the ability goes on to say that Monks get Improved Unarmed Combat for free and the descriptor for that feat is "you are skilled when fighting unarmed". Skilled is the same as being proficient. I dont know but I would wager you did something different. Actually no. I ran my beholder exactly as the MM suggests and my wife's 12th level rogue got hit with disintegrate and became particle dust. She wasn't happy. You said that you follow RAW and if someone doesnt then they are not playing DnD. or more exactly you said... Fine, you got me there. you somehow got the idea that if someone say doesn't like the wealth guidelines and decides to run either a higher wealth game or lower wealth game then they are not playing DnD... or are the Wealth guide lines not part of RAW... this can go for just about ever topic the DMG covers. Say I dont like the weather rules so I change those, am I no longer playing DnD, or the magic item rules or just about anything in the DMG. When did I make a comment about the wealth charts? Not sure where you are getting that one from. Unless you are assuming that I would say that based on my comment about RAW. I would say the contrary to your statement about 90% of the DMG and actually suggest that a good majority of the book is written rather well. Not all of it, mind you, but I find that I rarely change what is suggested in the DMG because I have found that it usually works well.
Ongorth 12-02-06, 10:47 AM	The DM has ONE role and that is the person running the game. If this is so self-evident, how come their is any discussion in this thread at all? This entire question is a discussion of what the DMs role consists of. Obviously, this is NOT consistent between groups. In some groups, people view the DM as the ultimate authority on everything other then the actions of the players. In some groups, people view the DM as the primary arbritator of mechanics, but is only a single voice in the creative process. In some groups, people view the DM as the primary arbitrator of creative material, but but only a single voice in mechanical matters. In some groups, people view the DM of having the authority over purely social matters. In some groups, people view the DM as being a supervisor to the efforts of the group rather then the creative authority itself. In some groups, DMs even view themselves on having authority over the players characters! And perhaps, in some groups, everyone sits around a computer program that pumps out monsters for them to kill. I wouldn't doubt it. However, these variety of views on roles have NOTHING TO DO WITH THE CHALLENGE LEVEL. In each case, the roles might determine whose input and final say determines the challenge level and whose actions dictate it, but within each there is room for an absolute range of challenge level possibilities. gg no re
CharlieRock 12-02-06, 10:51 AM	Why are you explaining me to things I already know? You are telling me how "DM Personality" or "DM Outlook" effect challenge level. That's nice. In a communal game, "Group Personality" or "Group Outlook" effect the challenge level of the game in an identical matter. In Ham-Hams "DM-BOT 6,000", the level of difficulty the settings on the hypothetical program change the challenge level. The change in the DM's role does not. How does the "DM Role" effect challenge level? You answred your own question. :rolleyes: You are telling me how "DM Personality" or "DM Outlook" effect challenge level. =1way In a communal game, "Group Personality" or "Group Outlook" effect the challenge level =2ways now. "DM-BOT 6,000", the level of difficulty the settings on the hypothetical program change the challenge level. =3ways "The change in the DM's role does not." You've just shown how (in three ways) a changing DM role can affect the challenge level. Lemme spell it out: The DMs role affects the challenge level in the game either through use of his or her own designs, pooling creatively within a group, or randomly set via A.I. resulting in three distinct types of gaming experience and challenges.
Kursk 12-02-06, 11:48 AM	This response helps explain to me a great deal about your viewpoint. Interesting indeed. You can tell my viewpoint because I was running out the door for a business meeting and wanted to acknowledge someone for helping me? You are amazing. :bravo:
pres_man 12-02-06, 12:02 PM	You answred your own question. :rolleyes: You are telling me how "DM Personality" or "DM Outlook" effect challenge level. =1way In a communal game, "Group Personality" or "Group Outlook" effect the challenge level =2ways now. "DM-BOT 6,000", the level of difficulty the settings on the hypothetical program change the challenge level. =3ways "The change in the DM's role does not." You've just shown how (in three ways) a changing DM role can affect the challenge level. Lemme spell it out: The DMs role affects the challenge level in the game either through use of his or her own designs, pooling creatively within a group, or randomly set via A.I. resulting in three distinct types of gaming experience and challenges. I think you are missing his point. In a game where a DM unilaterally decides (practically) everything, the game can be Monty Haul or Insane DM trying to TPK or some more moderate level. In a game where the players have input on certain aspects of the game, the game can be Monty Haul or Insane DM trying to TPK or some more moderate level. In a game that uses an artificial generator that can be set at different levels of difficulty, the game can be Monty Haul or Insane DM trying to TPK or some more moderate level. The actually role of the DM is not the deciding factor, it is the nature of that particular DM and/or group. Now, I would say that the above is not necessarily true. As games with a large bit of player input probably will avoid the extremes while games where the DM dominates the players are more likely to tend towards the extremes.
Ongorth 12-02-06, 12:27 PM	Interesting indeed. You can tell my viewpoint because I was running out the door for a business meeting and wanted to acknowledge someone for helping me? You are amazing. :bravo: I was talking to the other guy. His automatic assumption that you were being snarky and rude with your answer helped explain his apparent need for a legalistic system within D&D. I mean, if everyone is always putting in the minimum amount of effort and respect, then they need to be micromanged, don't they?
Ongorth 12-02-06, 12:44 PM	The actually role of the DM is not the deciding factor, it is the nature of that particular DM and/or group. Shockingly, yes, in the thread about DM Roles I was talking about the role of the DM. Lets take a step back for a minute and ponder, using the OP's questions. But what is an acceptable use of this authority, and what is an abuse? How does the DM's level of authority or abuse effect the challenge level in the game? An abusive DM's challenge level in the game likely varies by players as they are likely unfair an will make the game easy for those they like and harder for those they don't. Who then is the authority on what books are avable? can a player demand that a certain source book be allowed? can the DM not allow a book? And if so for what reason? How does the DMs right to allow/disallow books effect challenge level of the game? Whether your game is core only, selected splats, by request or anything goes, one would assume that the DM will set the challenge level ACCORDING TO the power level of the part and as such set the challenge level with regard to it. Meaning a game where the PCs are superpowerful could either be a "faceless hoardes" game or a series of epic cosmic battles. This also leads us into who invites the players. I was under the impression that it was the DM who invited the players to play in his/her game. Is this no longer the case? Do the players have the authority to add or remove other players. How does the right of invitation effect the challenge level? Are the games of DMs who have sole authority over this more or less challenging? Along with the responciblities of running a fair and consistant world for the PCs to adventure in, the GM is also responcible for ensuring that the majority of poeple have fun the majority of the time. How much of that burden falls on the players? How does worldbuilding responsibility effect challenge level? If the DM is the sole creator, is the game harder? If this is partially the players role, do the challenges become easier? And this leads us into balance. I defined balance in another thread, so i won't do that here again. I will however say that the Dm is responcible for enforcing balance. But to what responciblities do the players have to balance themselves? How does the role of enforcing balance effect challenge level? In an unablanced game automatically challenging or easy?
Matthew77 12-02-06, 01:12 PM	How does the "DM Role" effect challenge level? Lets start by defining "challenge level". As it seems to be used in this discussion, Challenge level = frequency of character death / failure to achive their goals. If that definition is acceptable, then here are some answers to your question. DM Role = Impartial controller of pre-set obstacles. In this case, challenge level varies depending on the actions of the PCs. If there happens to be a Dragon guarding the treasure the PCs want, then there is a high probability of character death or failure, but if the PCs avoid anything that sounds like it might offer a threat, challenge level will be low. DM Role = Storyteller In this case, challenge level is likely to be low. If the DM's role is to provide an ongoing, consistent story plot, then a TPK is very unlikely, as character death or failure usually abruptly ends the storyline. Unlike with an impartial controller DM, a party will rarely find itself in a situation they simply are unable to handle. DM Role = Opponent of Players In this case, challenge level will always be high. If the DM's role is to use every ability and tactic available (by RAW) to the obstacles, the PCs will die and fail often. A simple band of Orcs that might be an equal CR to the party would be a low-risk encounter with an impartial controller DM, but with an Opponent DM can easily turn into a TPK. See how the "Role" the DM envisions for himself changes the probability of PC death and or failure? Of course, if you were defining "challenge level" as something else, you might reach different conclusions. For example if "challenge level" is defined to mean "how much thought and effort on the player's part does reaching my character's goals require?", the the storyteller DM might have the highest challenge level.
Magnus_the_Mad 12-02-06, 03:11 PM	I think you are missing his point. In a game where a DM unilaterally decides (practically) everything, the game can be Monty Haul or Insane DM trying to TPK or some more moderate level. In a game where the players have input on certain aspects of the game, the game can be Monty Haul or Insane DM trying to TPK or some more moderate level. In a game that uses an artificial generator that can be set at different levels of difficulty, the game can be Monty Haul or Insane DM trying to TPK or some more moderate level. The actually role of the DM is not the deciding factor, it is the nature of that particular DM and/or group. Now, I would say that the above is not necessarily true. As games with a large bit of player input probably will avoid the extremes while games where the DM dominates the players are more likely to tend towards the extremes. Yes, but the DM will decide if the game is going to be Monty Haul, Insane DM mode or a moderate level therefore the DM IS the deciding factor of the challenge level of the game.
Magnus_the_Mad 12-02-06, 03:15 PM	You answred your own question. :rolleyes: You are telling me how "DM Personality" or "DM Outlook" effect challenge level. =1way In a communal game, "Group Personality" or "Group Outlook" effect the challenge level =2ways now. "DM-BOT 6,000", the level of difficulty the settings on the hypothetical program change the challenge level. =3ways "The change in the DM's role does not." You've just shown how (in three ways) a changing DM role can affect the challenge level. Lemme spell it out: The DMs role affects the challenge level in the game either through use of his or her own designs, pooling creatively within a group, or randomly set via A.I. resulting in three distinct types of gaming experience and challenges. Pretty much how I see it too.
Magnus_the_Mad 12-02-06, 03:19 PM	Interesting indeed. You can tell my viewpoint because I was running out the door for a business meeting and wanted to acknowledge someone for helping me? You are amazing. :bravo: Nah, he was talking to me but his reasons why I gave my response are off the mark big time (much like his other posts). I simply took your response as a jab at him but then realized you did not after your posted your response.
pres_man 12-02-06, 03:49 PM	Yes, but the DM will decide if If the DM has been given that kind of authority. It may be that some groups allow the entire group to decide, not just the DM. the game is going to be Monty Haul, Insane DM mode or a moderate level therefore the DM IS the deciding factor of the challenge level of the game. By the role given to the DM is not the deciding factor, as you say the DM (or the group based on how things are decided).
Ongorth 12-02-06, 10:36 PM	Lets start by defining "challenge level". As it seems to be used in this discussion, Challenge level = frequency of character death / failure to achive their goals. If that definition is acceptable, then here are some answers to your question. DM Role = Impartial controller of pre-set obstacles. In this case, challenge level varies depending on the actions of the PCs. If there happens to be a Dragon guarding the treasure the PCs want, then there is a high probability of character death or failure, but if the PCs avoid anything that sounds like it might offer a threat, challenge level will be low. DM Role = Storyteller In this case, challenge level is likely to be low. If the DM's role is to provide an ongoing, consistent story plot, then a TPK is very unlikely, as character death or failure usually abruptly ends the storyline. Unlike with an impartial controller DM, a party will rarely find itself in a situation they simply are unable to handle. DM Role = Opponent of Players In this case, challenge level will always be high. If the DM's role is to use every ability and tactic available (by RAW) to the obstacles, the PCs will die and fail often. A simple band of Orcs that might be an equal CR to the party would be a low-risk encounter with an impartial controller DM, but with an Opponent DM can easily turn into a TPK. See how the "Role" the DM envisions for himself changes the probability of PC death and or failure? I accept this definition and I agree with all your conclusions. The only thing I disagree with is the idea that these are the "roles" of a DM as set out in the begining of this thread. The discussion seemed to stem on the duties, responsibilities and authority of the DM. As such, in all three of your examples, the "role" of the DM is presenting the gameworld to the players, including the challenges. Whether the DM envisions himself as an umpire, storyteller or opponent would be the style of the game. You can have any of these three styles regardless of the attributed roles of the DM. A DM whose role includes controlling all mechanical materials can be a storyteller, umpire or opponent as can one who lets the players handle those matters. While some of them might be less condusive then others (extremely low authority groups tend to shy away from adversial games, while DM-BOT 6,000 would have a tough time with storytelling) they are not absolute. So, I agree with all your points, except that the role of the DM as set up by this thread does not effect challenge level.
Matthew77 12-03-06, 12:10 AM	I accept this definition and I agree with all your conclusions. The only thing I disagree with is the idea that these are the "roles" of a DM as set out in the begining of this thread. The discussion seemed to stem on the duties, responsibilities and authority of the DM. As such, in all three of your examples, the "role" of the DM is presenting the gameworld to the players, including the challenges. Whether the DM envisions himself as an umpire, storyteller or opponent would be the style of the game. You can have any of these three styles regardless of the attributed roles of the DM. A DM whose role includes controlling all mechanical materials can be a storyteller, umpire or opponent as can one who lets the players handle those matters. This makes sense. My suggestion would be that much of the disagreement in the previous two pages of this thread resulted from people using different definitions of the term "role" :) The question you seem interested in is: "does giving the players more control over the mechanical aspects of the game world create a less challenging game." I can imagine a group of amazingly objective players that could adequately challenge their own PCs if they had significant control over the game world, but in practice it would seem likely that the more control the players have over the setting, rules, and obstacles in the game world, the less likely they are to die or fail. Leaving "social" authority aside, we can consider mechanics and creative material, as Ongorth mentioned in a previous post. A campaign in which the players have significant control over mechanics and creative material will be less challenging than one in which the DM retains strict authority. The reason for this is that a Player's responsiblity is to identify with his character and strive to make that character suceed. (defined as achieving the character's goals, whatever they may be). The responsibilty of those making decisions about mechanics is to be objective and fair. The responsibility of those producing the creative material is to create a believable and consistent world. The empathy and immersion required to meet the responsiblities of the Player is in direct conflict with the impartiality and broad vision required to excel at mechanical rulings and world creation. It is possible for a player to think "okay, now I'm making a decision about game mechanics so I need to release my identification with my character and be impartial", but this constant switching of focus means that instead of doing a good job at meeting either set of responsiblities, you end up doing a poor job of both. (either character identification is lost and the character just becomes one more NPC, or character identification subconciously twists decisions to increase the chances of sucess and the campaign becomes less challenging) Thus, the best solution is to let the Player concentrate on his responsiblities, while assigning the other duties to a non-player (the DM), who can rule on game mechanics without having to discard emotional attachment to a character, and who can use his creative energies on the larger picture of world-building, letting the players focus their creativity on the small, but hugely important element of a single character. Edit: The bolded sentence sums up why I think DMs should hold final authority over game mechanics and creative material.
Ongorth 12-03-06, 12:55 AM	Well, you're free to that conclusion. I'm sure it works well for lots of people, but ultimately I think that approach is lacking. Different people are good at different stuff. Even people who are good at the same stuff are often good at it in different ways. As has been presented in this and other threads, their are a lot of responsibilities that are required to be filled in a D&D game. The idea that one single player in a group of five can, or even should, do the vast majority of the work as well as sacrifice their participation in many of the games most pleasurable aspects seems both foolish and inefficient. Futhermore it seems to be an act of pride (Only I alone can create a game that will be enjoyable), hubris (My skills require no help to crafting an enjoyable game) or martyrdom (I will sacrifice my enjoyment and time for the good of the other players). None of these are terribly appealing. By letting each person in the group use their talents, you can get the highest quality game. In the traditional D&D roles, the players are severely underutilized. Even when done at an exacting level, playing a single PC is not a demanding activity. The amount of effort their role requires of them is miniscule in comparison to that put on the shoulders of the DM. Why should this be, when players can contribute so much? Who better then the players to playtest the mechanics they wish to use? It is their experience that is enhanced or disappointed by them. Who better then the players to design the environments that their characters call home? That is, rather then trying to engineer their character from someone else's description, they can breath the soul into the world that formed their character's life. Who better then the players to form the plot threads they wish to play out? It is their characters existencethey wish to play out in a manner that allows them to truimph. Or fail. When the DM can take a step back and instead of attempting to control the game, instead organizes the thoughts of the group and shapes it into a cohesive form, it is something great that everyone can enjoy. A single person cannot hope to possess every talent, but a group might. The DM only needs one talent and one virtue to contribute. They need the talent of leadership, which is the ability to organize the players, utilize their strengths and compromise where needed. They need the virtue of fairness, which is the willingness to keep the enjoyment of each member of the as both of great importance and also of equal importance to each other member of the group. This can result in any style of game, from a hackfest based primarily around destroying number monsters with number heros. Or a tale told through collective storytelling. Or something in between. The level of challenge is up to their whims. While this may seem to suggest a less challenging game, many players use this as a platform for friendly competition, oneupsmanship. The players may be partial to their characters, true, but the fact that their of four of them competing for the same limited resources means that their is still competition and challenge. Furthermore, when given the responsibility to be in control of the happiness of the whole group, players quickly learn that without the possility of their own aims, it becomes unfair to enfore that possibility on others. Each player needs to and almost invariable does realize that being part of a team means that each person needs to give up some small parts of their dreams for their character to benefit everyone else. Like any group, these groups vary. But for many, this means allowing the risk of death and failure to come to their character, in exchange for the right to their character's chance for glory. Perhaps communal groups tend more towards low risk, high story games, but it certainly isn't required. Their is something distinctly dramatic about your own will and design being threatened by your own mechanations. All that said, I'm sure some groups hate this approach. I've been informed that this approach actually doesn't work even though I've been doing it for years. Just as I don't see much benefit for traditional DM roles beyond new players who don't know how to contribute yet, others don't see any reason to leave them because they've played dozens of extremely enjoyable games using them. That's fine. I think I'm right, they think they're right, everyone goes home happy and plays in the best campaign in the world. My issue comes when people derail the idea of the other viewpoints right to exist. Because, sadly, not everyone is playing in the best campaign in the world and it may very well be that the reason is because they are very creative individuals who feel stiffled by traditional DM roles. Conversely, some players who enjoy structure and immersion might feel dienchanted in a communal game. Explaining the perceived benefits and flaws of each method is helpful to people. Claiming that the other view doesn't exist, isn't D&D or is loathesome intrinsic in some fashion is not helpful.
HamHam 12-03-06, 01:10 AM	The responsibilty of those making decisions about mechanics is to be objective and fair. The responsibility of those producing the creative material is to create a believable and consistent world. The empathy and immersion required to meet the responsiblities of the Player is in direct conflict with the impartiality and broad vision required to excel at mechanical rulings and world creation. Wha? I can almost get this point when it comes to mechanics, but I fail to see what impartiality has to do with world creation. The world is just the stage. As for mechanics, that's what the RAW is for.
a_psh 12-03-06, 05:03 AM	The reason for this is that a Player's responsiblity is to identify with his character and strive to make that character suceed. (defined as achieving the character's goals, whatever they may be).Hold up. Where do we get the words "role" (using the sense that it carries when in the word "roleplaying" rather than the sense that it carried in the discussion of the GM's function above) and "character"? Let's see... What's a "character"? It's not just a person. It's a person in a fictional work (or, when used in terms like "you've got character" or "I saw a supsicious character," it's like the word "person" with a much stronger emphasis on behavioral traits). Characters have a kind of purpose that real people don't have. To call our game tokens "characters" is to say "this guy stands for something important". It's to assert that, whatever happens, that fictional person's qualities, actions, and life will have a meaning (which is how you hope to create a "story" rather than just a random sequence of events). When you create a character, you're not just making a person, you're making a person with a purpose. Writers create characters, too -- not just people but people who represent something and will have something happen to them in the end. Who "plays a role"? An actor in a movie, play, &c. Playing a role, indeed, assumes becoming the character in some sense, like what you talk about above -- you're the representation of that character on screen or stage, at the least. But you're still playing a character. And you're still part of a play, movie, &c. (a fictional story) yourself. It's not enough to just try really really hard to think like the guy, then, is it? You also have to communicate what he stands for, not just who he is in the narrow sense (though you could say that, as a character, what he stands for is an ineffable part of who he is, anyway). And you have to put him in situations that bring that out, even if it's bad for the character as a person. If you're playing a scene that highlights something bad about a character, you can't downplay it because "it's in his best interest not to look bad," for example, can you? So, just from the words we use to describe the act, we can see that the usual stuff people do when they go for immersion and call it awesome "roleplaying" is only half the trick. You're pretending to be a person. Great. Now go make him mean something. Make him interesting. Make him a part of the story you're developing together at the table. An actual fictional character like in a book. Sometimes, you need to step back from the prepice of immersion just a tad, in order to reveal a character's The responsibilty of those making decisions about mechanics is to be objective and fair. The responsibility of those producing the creative material is to create a believable and consistent world.Believable and consistent? What happened to interesting? Who cares how accurate the demographics of the the Forgotten Backwater of Bazoo are if nobody actually wants to go there? Even the most well-researched and carefully-constructed parts of the world will seem phony if people think they suck. The empathy and immersion required to meet the responsiblities of the Player is in direct conflict with the impartiality and broad vision required to excel at mechanical rulings and world creation.Whatever you're doing, you need a broad view in some respects. Otherwise you don't actually see the story you all have put together. On the other hand, what use is a "broad view" to the GM if the players aren't adopting one? His extra work will probably go pretty unappreciated if all the players are just myopically trying to focus on their PCs. It is possible for a player to think "okay, now I'm making a decision about game mechanics so I need to release my identification with my character and be impartial", but this constant switching of focus means that instead of doing a good job at meeting either set of responsiblities, you end up doing a poor job of both. (either character identification is lost and the character just becomes one more NPC, or character identification subconciously twists decisions to increase the chances of sucess and the campaign becomes less challenging)People switch voice to ask a rules question or make a joke pretty easily. Isn't the GM going to be "switching focus" every 15 seconds anyway, according to your model? This is pretty easy: "Okay, you get to this town. <some information about town, it's size, population, character; set up a major crisis happening at the moment for the PCs to react to> Okay, what kind of interesting people live here or happen to be passing through at the time?" Talk about idea. Bounce a good idea back and forth for a few minutes to refine it a bit ("Oh, that's cool. I'm gonna say he's from Y rather than X, though, because I really want to introduce that place into the game a bit more. Is that alright?"). Ten minutes later, you have some cool NPCs that you made up together, and you know they're going to be interesting to the players because they helped create them. And you can take a cue as to where they want this particular story to go from the various NPCs the players just worked up with you. Thus, the best solution is to let the Player concentrate on his responsiblities, while assigning the other duties to a non-player (the DM), who can rule on game mechanics without having to discard emotional attachment to a character, and who can use his creative energies on the larger picture of world-building, letting the players focus their creativity on the small, but hugely important element of a single character."Character identification"? Like my-guy-ism? A writer will often make up characters, build the world around them, and then subject them to all kinds of unpleasant things. They don't seem to have much trouble being emotionally attached to their characters.
a_psh 12-03-06, 05:04 AM	I did this today (non-D&D): The characters came upon a town that had been taken over by mercenary soldiers after a series of misfortunes caused them to be unable to pay back the soldiers for their services. Very quickly, we made up gypsies, a foreign bladeslinger, and an old woman living in the woods. The gypsies ended up being just color thus far but were actually a big deal, in retrospect, because we figured out that the world had gypsies at all and then decided that they were more like a vagabond culture anyone could join than a specific race. They treated the bladeslinger as a wildcard in the conflict but he quickly became an ally, and I quickly jumped on the opportunity to introduce some swordsman's philosophy into the game; moreover, his presence also told me that the players wanted their characters to have to resort to some kind of actual physical combat to resolve the problem -- pretty cool, huh? And somebody didn't go and back that all up in one go... one of us just said something conversational about Westerns and gunfights, which reminded us of this guy's concept, and then we just kind of talked about how he looks and where he's been. The old woman in the woods quickly turned into a town elder (so now the town was ruled by a council of elders) who was forced to flee when the soldiers took over. We then decided that most of the other elders' corpses were hanging from the town wall. And that the crone had helped the town to try to poison the soldiers, which was one of the causes of the conflict escalating. And then we were back to good ol' everybody-playing-one-character mode pretty effortlessly. In creating the supporting characters the way they did, the players set themselves up for a desperate and dangerous situation: the mercenaries were already wise to indirect methods (e.g. another poisoning) and they were rather paranoid and angry (adding urgency to the situation). The addition of the bladeslinger put combat into the mix and challenged them to try to explain their personal philosophies to him a bit. The way we talked about the old woman also added an element of superstition to the story. Now the PCs are working on a plan to convince their enemies that they weild black magic. And, despite everything that's wrong with the town, the gypsies are a bit of a hint, for all of us, that life's not that bad there at the moment. That's some nice world- and story- building right there.
CharlieRock 12-03-06, 08:37 AM	This is pretty easy: "Okay, you get to this town. <some information about town, it's size, population, character; set up a major crisis happening at the moment for the PCs to react to> Okay, what kind of interesting people live here or happen to be passing through at the time?" Talk about idea. Bounce a good idea back and forth for a few minutes to refine it a bit ("Oh, that's cool. I'm gonna say he's from Y rather than X, though, because I really want to introduce that place into the game a bit more. Is that alright?"). Ten minutes later, you have some cool NPCs that you made up together, and you know they're going to be interesting to the players because they helped create them. And you can take a cue as to where they want this particular story to go from the various NPCs the players just worked up with you. No. I don't make up the characters, the players don't make up the NPCs. Or the town's history or geography. I make that part up. They're the players, they make the characters and get the ball rolling on what kinds of things happen. I make the props and cast the extras. I make a town, they decide it's fate. That's the game.
Matthew77 12-03-06, 09:15 AM	Wha? I can almost get this point when it comes to mechanics, but I fail to see what impartiality has to do with world creation. The world is just the stage. As for mechanics, that's what the RAW is for. Impartial world creation = "this town/person/magic item is here because it makes sense/will be interesting" Non-impartial world creation = "this town/person/magic item is here because it will help my character"
Matthew77 12-03-06, 09:32 AM	A lot of good ideas from a_psh, I will try to comment on some of them. Whatever you're doing, you need a broad view in some respects. Otherwise you don't actually see the story you all have put together. On the other hand, what use is a "broad view" to the GM if the players aren't adopting one? His extra work will probably go pretty unappreciated if all the players are just myopically trying to focus on their PCs. What I mean by "broad view" is that a DM has to consider "is this decision good for the campaign as a whole", while a Player can have the narrow view of "is this decision good for my character." People switch voice to ask a rules question or make a joke pretty easily. Isn't the GM going to be "switching focus" every 15 seconds anyway, according to your model? A player spends most of his time in "strive for the best for my character" mode. Switching out of that to "do what's best for the campaign" mode is not an easy process. Don't you ever run into the problem of "Did I make this decision because its the best, impartial solution, or did I make it because it works out well for my character." Then you end up overcompensating and making things too hard for your character. This is same reason why DMs shouldn't have DMPCs. This is pretty easy: "Okay, you get to this town. <some information about town, it's size, population, character; set up a major crisis happening at the moment for the PCs to react to> Okay, what kind of interesting people live here or happen to be passing through at the time?" Talk about idea. Bounce a good idea back and forth for a few minutes to refine it a bit ("Oh, that's cool. I'm gonna say he's from Y rather than X, though, because I really want to introduce that place into the game a bit more. Is that alright?"). Ten minutes later, you have some cool NPCs that you made up together, and you know they're going to be interesting to the players because they helped create them. And you can take a cue as to where they want this particular story to go from the various NPCs the players just worked up with you. Hmm. So if the Players are involved in the creating the town, how is it fun to explore and meet all these interesting people? To me, the enjoyment of being a player comes from not having full knowledge of the world, and making the best decisions I can with limited knowledge. Maybe your group enjoys delibrately pretending you don't know information, but to me I don't see the point in asking the innkeeper about local history when I helped create the innkeeper and the local town. I might as well just be talking to myself. This is the same reason why if I use a published module, I ask my players not to read it beforehand. Otherwise, the game becomes just an exercise in acting skills. If that's what you enjoy, great. But for me, the fun of the game lies in the exploration and discovery. In order for suspense to exist, there must be a lack of knowledge. It sounds to me like you are turning the In-game process of exploring the town into an out-of-game process of communal creation. Not an inherently bad approach, but not one that I would enjoy. Edit: actually, I would enjoy the creation process, but I would then be unable to enjoy the exploration process. This is why I DM one campaign and play in others, so I get both sides :) "Character identification"? Like my-guy-ism? A writer will often make up characters, build the world around them, and then subject them to all kinds of unpleasant things. They don't seem to have much trouble being emotionally attached to their characters. This is why, IMO, D&D is more fun than writing a book. Neither the DM nor the Player knows all the outcomes nor do they have perfect information. The DM has added enjoyment of being surprised by his Player's actions, and the Players have the added enjoyment of exploring and being suprised by the world and obstacles the DM has created. Full knowledge on either side reduces the game to the level of a creative writing exercise.
CharlieRock 12-03-06, 09:54 AM	But for me, the fun of the game lies in the exploration and discovery. Seconded. I get to alternate campaigns with another player who DMs the other one, so I get to play and DM :D (the best of both worlds). Paranoia exists outside of either parameters. Creation, because Alpha Complex and the Computer were already made. Exploration ,because we pretty much know what life is like there :evillaugh (but, what a fun life it is to play)
deadDMwalking 12-03-06, 10:11 AM	This has been an interesting an informative discussion. Currently, I'm in a campaign with rotating DMs. We do not work on events communally, but we have access to notes, etc from each other. Basically, each player takes on the mantle of DM to run an adventure (whether that is one night of gaming or six nights of gaming - doesn't matter). While we are all "DMs" we won't "change" things for the DM that is running things. But we can all jump in with an encounter we have ready (that the DM himself doesn't know about). This creates a little bit of flexibility among us as players - as a group we formed the broad strokes of the game and discussed what we want from the game. Now, while I enjoy the game, there is a problem with my enjoyment. I think the adventures I run are pretty fun, but when I'm the "DM" I don't feel like I can really interact with my NPCs in a fun and interesting way. I can engage someone else's NPC but not my own. If I ask another DMs NPC to join my party, I don't know if they'll betray us, or what their true motivation is. When it is my NPC, I have no doubt about what their intentions are (unless, of course, another DM changes my vision later). Thtat, for me, does take the joy out of the experience. Now, as a Player, not every adventure is fully to my taste, but I can't get the most enjoyment out of the adventures that are most clearly "designed" for me. In fact, I'm careful not to design things too much for myself knowing I won't get much chance to enjoy it as the DM and my players (also DMs - are doing the same for themselves). It works out fairly, and reasonably, but I wouldn't want to go to a more "open" system of design then we already have where encounters are determined after we meet them.
Greg K 12-03-06, 11:45 AM	In creating the supporting characters the way they did, the players set themselves up for a desperate and dangerous situation: the mercenaries were already wise to indirect methods (e.g. another poisoning) and they were rather paranoid and angry (adding urgency to the situation). The addition of the bladeslinger put combat into the mix and challenged them to try to explain their personal philosophies to him a bit. The way we talked about the old woman also added an element of superstition to the story. Now the PCs are working on a plan to convince their enemies that they weild black magic. And, despite everything that's wrong with the town, the gypsies are a bit of a hint, for all of us, that life's not that bad there at the moment. That's some nice world- and story- building right there. If this works for your group great. However, I would never want to play that way. When I am a player, I am not therr to design the world, I am there to experience and interact with the world the DM created so I willingly lay my DM cap at the door. I don't want to know about people and places my character has never met before until my character actually encounter them. If I want to build the world, I'll be the DM.
Magnus_the_Mad 12-03-06, 01:24 PM	If this works for your group great. However, I would never want to play that way. When I am a player, I am not therr to design the world, I am there to experience and interact with the world the DM created so I willingly lay my DM cap at the door. I don't want to know about people and places my character has never met before until my character actually encounter them. If I want to build the world, I'll be the DM. posted by Charlie Rock. No. I don't make up the characters, the players don't make up the NPCs. Or the town's history or geography. I make that part up. They're the players, they make the characters and get the ball rolling on what kinds of things happen. I make the props and cast the extras. I make a town, they decide it's fate. That's the game. I agree whole heartedly with these two responses. What challenge can the players possibly have when they know the motivations and goals of the NPCs in advance? Wouldn't it be better they discovered them instead? How would the characters know that information anyway unless they interacted with the NPCs and actually used, maybe, gather information? The only challenge I forsee is the resulting combats but then you are only really truly running hack and slash after that because there is nothing to discover beyond what the players already know. Like a good stage production, there is a cast, a crew and a director. While there may be many supervisors that run various aspects of a production (stage manager, technical director, artistic director, writers, producers, etc.), D&D is far less complex in its actual prep and execution and often most of those roles are assumed by the DM. In a stage production, the actors/ actresses know their characters and the plot in advance so they can find the motivation to properly take on the personality of their role and put on a good performance. A stage production may be an art form, but in the end the purpose is to perform in front of an audience. You play D&D for your own enjoyment (at least I hope so) and there is no audience to worry about (well, unless you like inviting folks over who may distract from your session that is). Now, in a stage production, there is one and only one person who has final say and calls the shots and that is the director (and if you think some DMs can be harsh, then you probably have little stage experience :D). Again, this is the extreme though. If a stage director doesn't like the way something is in their show they will say "no, no, no. Change it. That's not what I want" and if you want to keep working on that production you had better darn well do it. I don't think D&D should be that restrictive at all, but the element I'm after here is this: I'll create and run the world and everything in it that is not your player character. I will allow as much material as I can for you to create your character so long as it fits the vision of my world. Simply put, given those two parameters, I'll direct and you perform but the difference is that you are NOT aware of the plot in advance. Improv was mentioned before but I don't think that model of acting works well at all in D&D. "Yes and" and "no, but" is more for short skits here and there but not meant for four eight hour sessions of acting(D&D). Futhermore, they teach actors to keep the bit going by creating positive reinforcement of the situation. "No, but" is referred to as a bit killer but sometimes there are some situations in the game where this may be necessary. Sorry, but my NPCs won't be answering the partys questions with "Yes and" all the time. Does that mean your game session is over and the mood is killed? Not likely.
pres_man 12-03-06, 01:39 PM	A player spends most of his time in "strive for the best for my character" mode. Switching out of that to "do what's best for the campaign" mode is not an easy process. Only if being a player means one has to be totally self-centered. Frankly, I find that a poor gaming model for a group game. A player that only thinks about "what is best for my character" and not about "what is best for the whole group", is usually not someone that it is enjoyable to game with. Everytime loot comes up, they always want to get the best gear, even if they can't use it, instead of looking to see who in the party could benefit most from that. That kind of thinking for a group game is extremely shortsighted. Don't you ever run into the problem of "Did I make this decision because its the best, impartial solution, or did I make it because it works out well for my character." Then you end up overcompensating and making things too hard for your character. Nope, can't say I've had that problem. I tend to instead think about what would be the most fun for everyone, and go from there. True I have gamed with people who tend to interpretate things so that they get the most benefit from it. When these people were DMs, I tended to be extremely annoyed as well because that way of thinking wasn't limited to only when they were a player. This is same reason why DMs shouldn't have DMPCs. This is why SOME DMs shouldn't run DMPCs, or more accurately some DMs should avoid trying to run a Snuggywug because they are incapable of not making it a Snuggywugs le d'oh.
Greg K 12-03-06, 01:48 PM	Improv was mentioned before but I don't think that model of acting works well at all in D&D. "Yes and" and "no, but" is more for short skits here and there but not meant for four eight hour sessions of acting(D&D). Futhermore, they teach actors to keep the bit going by creating positive reinforcement of the situation. "No, but" is referred to as a bit killer but sometimes there are some situations in the game where this may be necessary. Actually, what I thought regarding the mention of improv and saying "no" is will the director let you, as an actor, play a lizardman on camera in either Excalibur or Lord of the Rings just because you think it would be cool.? How about playing Van Helsing as a vampire in Dracula or as The Man with No Name (complete with six shooters, poncho and cowboy hat)? The answer is "Hell No" unless they are directly trying to do a spoof or some other oddball version. If the director feels you are approaching a role inappropriately, you will know. Keep playing the role the way you want after the director said no and you will most likely be replaced. There is a difference between giving latitude between how you approach a role and playing a character that is completely inappropriate.
Magnus_the_Mad 12-03-06, 02:02 PM	Actually, what I thought regarding the mention of improv and saying "no" is will the director let you, as an actor, play a lizardman on camera in either Excalibur or Lord of the Rings just because you think it would be cool.? How about playing Van Helsing as a vampire in Dracula or as The Man with No Name (complete with six shooters, poncho and cowboy hat)? The answer is "Hell No" unless they are directly trying to do a spoof or some other oddball version. If the director feels you are approaching a role inappropriately, you will know. Keep playing the role the way you want after the director said no and you will most likely be replaced. There is a difference between giving latitude between how you approach a role and playing a character that is completely inappropriate. While I agree with you, it should be noted that improv is more a no-holds-barred type of acting so the spoofs that you are mentioning have a high likelyhood of actually happening, but purely on a comedic basis and without a dramatic element. Ever watch "Who's Line is it Anyway"? Those guys don't pull punches and come up with some really funny and interesting skits given only a short description by the host. There is a HUGE difference between improv and other types of productions. Improv is winging it mainly. Like I've said before, I don't like to run these types of games and my players don't like playing them either so we don't just make things up as we go along. I agree that a good "Hell NO" is in order when things get crazy, but I rarely find that I have to say that in my group.
Kursk 12-03-06, 02:09 PM	Nah, he was talking to me but his reasons why I gave my response are off the mark big time (much like his other posts). I simply took your response as a jab at him but then realized you did not after your posted your response. Oh. I got a bit mixed up myself as to who was responding to who. Oh well. Thanks.
Man in the Funny Hat 12-03-06, 02:52 PM	So what is exactly the role of the game master? To administer and adjudicate rules, Presenting a fun and interesting milieu for Player Characters, Supervise the behavior of the players at the table, Take pride and enjoyment out of the game for him/herself. S/he is also the adjudicator of the rules. And I think here in lies the problem.It is not a problem - it's a necessity. In a roleplaying game the rules are ALWAYS without predetermined limits as no rule set could possibly hope to define the totality of existence and encompass all possibilities of actions. "Problems" here arise from either players or DM being unnecessarily demanding of the other side of the screen. The Dm must also be fair and consist with the rules at all times. However this does grant the Dm the power of the final say over any rules dispute. However that being siad, the players do have the right to leave, or discontinue playing at anytime. Thus the Gm should never abuse this power. But what is an acceptable use of this authority, and what is an abuse?Well the question should be what is REASONABLE since whatever the players actually do accept is defined as what is acceptable. Abuse of this power? Well, there's what _I_ would accept, what is typically accepted, what players and DM's agree to prior to playing, and finally what grouchy and obnoxious DM's and players actually DO. Who then is the authority on what books are available? can a player demand that a certain source book be allowed? can the DM not allow a book? And if so for what reason?The DM is the final authority here, and he can make whatever limitations he wants for whatever reason he wants. If players take issue with it then the DM should rightfully explain his reasons (and "because I said so" is NOT sufficient) and then players should agree to abide by it or else reach some compromise or accomodation with the DM before moving any further. Really, it's just that simple. Players have every right to ASK for their whims to be catered to but have no right whatsoever to EXPECT their whims to be catered to. Ever. Of course the same applies to the DM. This also leads us into who invites the players. I was under the impression that it was the DM who invited the players to play in his/her game. Is this no longer the case? Do the players have the authority to add or remove other players.ANYONE, DM or player, who invites others into the game without approval or consideration of everyone else at the table is a jerk. But given the PERSONAL as well as rules administrative obligations of the DM it really ought to be the DM's right to REFUSE to allow others to join the game. When approving the admission of others to the game it should be first come, first served unless the group as a whole reaches other accomodations. Along with the responciblities of running a fair and consistant world for the PCs to adventure in, the GM is also responcible for ensuring that the majority of poeple have fun the majority of the time. How much of that burden falls on the players?Put it this way - the DM is not there to INFLICT fun on the players. Their intimate participation is a requirement. When it comes down to it there's only so much the DM can do. ANYONE who is not having fun should be making others aware of the reasons why OUTSIDE of the game. Communication among participants (or lack thereof) is responsible for 90% of game problems. 5% is rules disagreements. 5% is someone just being a jerk, all communication aside. And this leads us into balance. I defined balance in another thread, so i won't do that here again.Unfortunate for those who may not have READ your other threads and thus do not know your definition. Like me. For my part, without knowing exactly what "balance" you're referring to, I will say that balance is illusion and/or delusion. Start with ensuring every character has "equal" ability scores. Take two sets of ability scores and apply them to two different character classes/races and you already have INEQUITY. When you add equipment, magic, playing style, etc. the inequities only increase. The best the DM can do is attempt to ensure that all the players are getting a share of what THAT player wants from the game. It's okay to always give the spotlight to one player/PC if nobody else wants it. If all a player wants is to be a melee badass and roll dice then there's little reason not to let them have it, so long as you are not ignoring the player who cares little for combat but loves conversing with NPC's. [And of course don't forget that the players themselves MUST be accomodating of other players preferences to a degree.] Also because the DM is the one who places, and controls the challenges, be it trap or monster. the DM is the one who is responsible for balancing the encounters against the PCs. This is a fine line indeed. Too difficult, and no one has fun as they die all the time. Too easy and it becomes boring. But then that begs the question what is an ideal challenge?The DM must start by remembering at all times that he wins whenever he wants to win. Winning for the DM is as easy as breathing. THe challenge to the DM is to challenge the characters to the degree necessary for EVERYONE to remain interested and enjoying the game. Now that might mean that the PC's will rarely be in genuinely mortal danger. It might mean that the next TPK could be ANY place at ANY time, and typically IS. Typically a game will be somewhere between those extremes. It is a patent impossibility for the DM to ever guarantee a given level of challenge, but there exist plenty of tools for the DM to make pretty good guesses with reasonable consistency and then adjust as play styles and game needs dictate. Regardless, there's no reason for the DM to NOT tell the players up front, and regularly thereafter, what line he's generally going to be shooting for. There's also no reason for the players to not provide feedback and request that the DM make adjustments.
a_psh 12-03-06, 05:47 PM	What I mean by "broad view" is that a DM has to consider "is this decision good for the campaign as a whole", while a Player can have the narrow view of "is this decision good for my character."If you actually subscribe to the idea that a "story" comes out of roleplaying, everybody has to be taking the broad view, since it's only the person who's taking the broad view that's substantively writing the story. And if it's just going to be one person writing the story, why the hell are the rest of you there at all? (Similarly, if he already wrote it before you sat down to the table, what exactly are you doing in play?) A player spends most of his time in "strive for the best for my character" mode. Switching out of that to "do what's best for the campaign" mode is not an easy process. Don't you ever run into the problem of "Did I make this decision because its the best, impartial solution, or did I make it because it works out well for my character." Then you end up overcompensating and making things too hard for your character. This is same reason why DMs shouldn't have DMPCs.Why is there such a thing as a special "strive for the best for my character" mode, at all? I mean, your character isn't really doing that himself, in-character. He's just... acting and reacting based on how he feels. Saving villages because he feels that's the right thing to do, &c. Hmm. So if the Players are involved in the creating the town, how is it fun to explore and meet all these interesting people?Well, like we said, they are interesting, for starters. Moreover, did the players come to the table to wander around town and see NPCs? Or did they come to, well, do something? They're looking for a situation that allows them to explore the nature of their characters. In this case, they want to find a conflict, pass judgement, and then resolve it however they see fit. Which develops both the story and their characters. Seeing what's what and what's where lays the groundwork for that stuff but doesn't actually have anything to do with it directly. So I don't see a strong reason why laying the groundwork for the actual fun has to be a strictly in-character thing that merits a lot of time and attention. To me, the enjoyment of being a player comes from not having full knowledge of the world, and making the best decisions I can with limited knowledge.So published campaign settings are right out, then, too? And so is using the Monster Manual for creatures? Maybe your group enjoys delibrately pretending you don't know information, but to me I don't see the point in asking the innkeeper about local history when I helped create the innkeeper and the local town.Pretending what? What's the point of spending more than five minutes on asking the innkeeper for information at all? Nothing's happening there. You're basically just sitting through exposition anyway, aren't you? If the first shlub you interrogate on the street will just retell the stuff we just made up together anyway, is it really a big deal to get one less first-shlub-you-interrogate-on-the-street-tells-you-all-the-basics scenes out of the game? Here's the other thing. Remember how a character isn't just a person but a person with a purpose? Well, sometimes you have to look at the big picture and (oh, noes!) "metagame" in order to address that character's theme and purpose. To knowingly put him in a certain situation because, well, that develops the idea that you had. This doesn't mean knowing everything about the world, but it does mean that it's oftentimes quite useful to exercise knowledge of, say, a conversation your character wasn't a part of in order to make something dramatic happen. I might as well just be talking to myself. This is the same reason why if I use a published module, I ask my players not to read it beforehand.You don't notice the difference there? We set up a conflict and some potential players in that conflict. At that stage, we did absolutely dick to talk about how that conflict would progress. How is that like a published module? Also, making the important decisions in prep rather than play is the quintessence of talking to yourself. Otherwise, the game becomes just an exercise in acting skills. If that's what you enjoy, great. But for me, the fun of the game lies in the exploration and discovery. In order for suspense to exist, there must be a lack of knowledge.Exploration and discovery of what, though? Are someone's old church basement, now filled with ghouls, or a big cave full of wyverns very interesting by themself? Is a small town, even? Suspense... what's suspense? When you watch a movie, you know what's gonna happen in the general sense. Narrative convention and all. Can Babe the pig really not win his freakin' medal, can Diehard not kick all the bad guy's butts? What kind of story would that be? No, of course he wins his medal and of course he kicks all their butts! The "suspense" is just seeing how they get there and what price they have to pay along the way. Hell, if I made up an RPG where, at the beginning of the game, everybody gets a card with some kind of terrible fate that will inexorably befall them later on, that's more suspense than having no idea what's going to happen at all! It sounds to me like you are turning the In-game process of exploring the town into an out-of-game process of communal creation.No, I'm turning the out-of-game process of creating the town into the in-game process of creating the town. ;) So, yeah, we pretty much elide the bits about hearing rumors about the bladeslinger because, well, listening to the GM spin out rumors for 30 minutes isn't that great when he could just give you the digest anyway. Roleplaying NPCs and scenes that are irrelevant to the actual story is a pointless acting exercise, isn't it? But, here's the thing: when the PCs first actually interact with the bladeslinger, they change the parameters completely. Before, when we made him up, we didn't pre-judge him. He's not a hero or a villain. He's just a guy. He exists in the world but not the story. Now, they talk to him, give him things to react to, and he becomes a character, too. You make an appeal for aid based on your philosophy of justice? Cool, so now his character is about the exploration of philosophical themes. He always had some kind of philosophy as a virtual person, but it's when you bring that into the story that it actually is a part of his identity as an actual character. This is why, IMO, D&D is more fun than writing a book. Neither the DM nor the Player knows all the outcomes nor do they have perfect information.Having heard some serious writers trying to explain what's in their heads a few times, I'd have to say that a lot of them don't, either. It just kind of... goes somewhere. You get a lot of that effect for free by just having more than one person "writing" together. But the trick is that they all have to be writing. Not one writer and three to six readers. The DM has added enjoyment of being surprised by his Player's actions, and the Players have the added enjoyment of exploring and being suprised by the world and obstacles the DM has created. Full knowledge on either side reduces the game to the level of a creative writing exercise.Dice add surprise. Snap judgements add surprise. Not knowing a specific detail until someone else writes it in adds surprise. In the example above, I didn't really know what the bladeslinger was going to be about as a character. But they started appealing to his philosophical side so, clearly, his philosophical side will matter in the story. The answers to the big question -- "What does this actually mean?" -- surface all the time, and those are the biggest surprises. ... Yeah, yeah, I understand why people want to just putter around the world and make a big deal out of discovering new details about it. But, c'mon! What are you really there to explore? Farmer Joe's pigpen and that big face-shaped rock over there? How the town cooper feels about the town cobbler? That hole in the wall in room 3B that contains a +1 dagger and two potions of water breathing? Or, I dunno, themes and characters? I don't make up a small town because I want the players to spend time learning about it. Enh, it's a small town, the details of its existence won't matter to us next week. I make up a small town as the backdrop to some kind of conflict. I'm interested in building that conflict. And because that conflict is directly related to what we want to explore, because it's important, I do it right at the table. Making up NPCs isn't the key thing here. It's assigning them places in the storyline through play that matters. Not in prep, in play. Because everything that's cool and awesome should happen right there, at the damn table, not somewhere else. Of course we didn't have to sit down and make up NPCs together. But it was a convenient way to deal address what each of us wanted from the story, themtically, and to populate the world with ideas that we would actually find interesting. And it's a good demonstration that doing that doesn't destroy the game. The players are still engaged. They still care about their characters. The story is definitely going somewhere. The people they're interacting with are definitely interesting people. And the "challenge" certainly hasn't disappeared. Nor has the suspense. Nor has the exploration. What was lost, exactly, when I did that? Half an hour of pointless exposition?
Ongorth 12-03-06, 10:55 PM	Stuff Have we played together before? While I can't say I always agree with the contents of your opinions, the way you describe the actual functioning of your game sounds very familiar to me. . .
a_psh 12-03-06, 11:14 PM	Have we played together before?Nope. I am using some common language and stock examples from the Forge, &c., however. I think the Babe example is pretty famous; it comes from here (http://lumpley.com/hardcore.html). Bazoo, used above, is some designer's catch-all for setting-expanding splatbooks (stuff like Five Nations and Silver Marches). Et cetera. You pick up a lot of terminology if you read some of the theory guys. And some good ideas if you can get past the stupid "Nuh-uh! My game is a rich tapestry of imagination! You can't explain it or improve it!" phase.
Matthew77 12-03-06, 11:54 PM	If you actually subscribe to the idea that a "story" comes out of roleplaying, everybody has to be taking the broad view, since it's only the person who's taking the broad view that's substantively writing the story. Elements of a story: Plot, Setting, Characters. DM provides the Plot and the Setting. Players provide the Characters. Why is there such a thing as a special "strive for the best for my character" mode, at all? I mean, your character isn't really doing that himself, in-character. He's just... acting and reacting based on how he feels. Saving villages because he feels that's the right thing to do, &c. Yes, in-game, my character is always striving to do what is best for him. We might have a definition mis-communication here. "Best" does not always equal selfish. For a Paladin, "best" means following his code. For most rational characters, the best thing for me includes what's best for the party. If you aren't taking what your character would consider the best action, then you aren't really playing your character. Moreover, did the players come to the table to wander around town and see NPCs? Or did they come to, well, do something? They're looking for a situation that allows them to explore the nature of their characters. In this case, they want to find a conflict, pass judgement, and then resolve it however they see fit. Which develops both the story and their characters. Seeing what's what and what's where lays the groundwork for that stuff but doesn't actually have anything to do with it directly. So I don't see a strong reason why laying the groundwork for the actual fun has to be a strictly in-character thing that merits a lot of time and attention. People enjoy various aspects of playing D&D. I happen to enjoy wandering around towns and talking to NPCs (maybe because I don't already have intimate knowledge of them because the DM created them, not me). If the only parts of D&D that are fun for you are conflict, than I can see why you don't mind losing the exploration and discovery parts of the game. So published campaign settings are right out, then, too? And so is using the Monster Manual for creatures? There is a big difference between "partial knowledge" which I what I said, and "zero knowledge", which is what you seem to be implying here. Pretending what? What's the point of spending more than five minutes on asking the innkeeper for information at all? Nothing's happening there. You're basically just sitting through exposition anyway, aren't you? If the first shlub you interrogate on the street will just retell the stuff we just made up together anyway, is it really a big deal to get one less first-shlub-you-interrogate-on-the-street-tells-you-all-the-basics scenes out of the game? This is kind of my point... if you haven't helped make up the exposition, then getting the information from the innkeeper is a enjoyable process, not just a waste of time. Although, if you don't find conversing with NPCs enjoyable, I can see why you'd rather just skip this part of the game. Here's the other thing. Remember how a character isn't just a person but a person with a purpose? Well, sometimes you have to look at the big picture and (oh, noes!) "metagame" in order to address that character's theme and purpose. To knowingly put him in a certain situation because, well, that develops the idea that you had. This doesn't mean knowing everything about the world, but it does mean that it's oftentimes quite useful to exercise knowledge of, say, a conversation your character wasn't a part of in order to make something dramatic happen. I'm not sure what you mean by this. It sounds like you are saying that you have ideas for your character but don't want to bother developing them in-game, you just want them to somehow happen spontanously? You don't notice the difference there? We set up a conflict and some potential players in that conflict. At that stage, we did absolutely dick to talk about how that conflict would progress. How is that like a published module? A published module also sets up a conflict, but does not dictate how that conflict progresses. Exploration and discovery of what, though? Are someone's old church basement, now filled with ghouls, or a big cave full of wyverns very interesting by themself? Is a small town, even? Umm.. yes? I do find exploring unknown locations, meeting strangers and getting to know about them, and discovering imaginative places fun and interesting. So, yeah, we pretty much elide the bits about hearing rumors about the bladeslinger because, well, listening to the GM spin out rumors for 30 minutes isn't that great when he could just give you the digest anyway. Roleplaying NPCs and scenes that are irrelevant to the actual story is a pointless acting exercise, isn't it? Only the fact that you already know the information makes it pointless. Discovering rumors, sorting truth from lies, making guesses to fill in the gaps in your knowledge, all these things are enjoyable for me to do in-game. Also.. if you don't already know the storyline, how do you know if an NPC is central or irrelevant. Maybe the very fact that you stopped to talk to innkeeper can involve him in the storyline, even turn him into an important ally or recurring character. But, here's the thing: when the PCs first actually interact with the bladeslinger, they change the parameters completely. Before, when we made him up, we didn't pre-judge him. He's not a hero or a villain. He's just a guy. He exists in the world but not the story. Now, they talk to him, give him things to react to, and he becomes a character, too. You make an appeal for aid based on your philosophy of justice? Cool, so now his character is about the exploration of philosophical themes. He always had some kind of philosophy as a virtual person, but it's when you bring that into the story that it actually is a part of his identity as an actual character. Interesting. So your NPCs don't have personalities until the PCs interact with them? Again, I don't understand what you mean here. When I'm a player, I find it more enjoyable to have interactions with NPCs if I don't know their stats/personality/background before I start interacting with them. This is why I prefer that the DM create them without getting input from the players. I apolgize, but I don't understand what your comment about characters not being "in the story" until the PCs meet them has to do with whether or not the players or the DM has creative control over the NPC. Making up NPCs isn't the key thing here. It's assigning them places in the storyline through play that matters. In my games, an NPC's stats and background usually determine their role in the storyline. A farmer with no ambition is not going to have the same role as a high-level evil wizard that wants to dominate the elven kingdom. How do you assign a place in the storyline through play? If the PCs treat the evil wizard like a friendly ally, does that change his place in the storyline? I can see how PCs actions could change the evil wizard from a minor encounter into a recurring master villian, but someone had to decide this guy would be an evil wizard in the first place, and that someone should be the DM, not the Players. How else could you ever mislead the PCs about the true intentions or nature of the people they meet? Of course we didn't have to sit down and make up NPCs together. But it was a convenient way to deal address what each of us wanted from the story, themtically, and to populate the world with ideas that we would actually find interesting. And it's a good demonstration that doing that doesn't destroy the game. The players are still engaged. They still care about their characters. The story is definitely going somewhere. The people they're interacting with are definitely interesting people. And the "challenge" certainly hasn't disappeared. Nor has the suspense. Nor has the exploration. What was lost, exactly, when I did that? Half an hour of pointless exposition? This last paragraph makes good sense to me. If you don't feel you are losing anything, by all means skip those parts of the game. Personally, I enjoy the mystery and stimulation that comes from exploring someone else's creative art. If your gaming style works for your group, great! But I think that either I'm mis-interpreting your philosophy, or else we're expecting very different experiences when we sit down to the gaming table.
a_psh 12-04-06, 03:47 AM	Personally, I enjoy the mystery and stimulation that comes from exploring someone else's creative art.I do, too. I enjoy it so much that I want to do it when I GM, too. And so much that, when I'm making my own creative art, I want to take some of theirs and mix it in with mine. See how that works? Using one technique often doesn't preclude using another. In my example above, the players aren't making up ]all the NPCs as we go, are they? But that example does show you how the ability to freely pick up a bit of setting control whenever you want it doesn't ruin roleplaying or destroy "challenge".
CharlieRock 12-04-06, 08:54 AM	If you actually subscribe to the idea that a "story" comes out of roleplaying, everybody has to be taking the broad view, since it's only the person who's taking the broad view that's substantively writing the story. And if it's just going to be one person writing the story, why the hell are the rest of you there at all? (Similarly, if he already wrote it before you sat down to the table, what exactly are you doing in play?) There is a flaw to this statement. It is that one must have a broad view to 'write a story'. You don't. Many stories are told from the first person perspective. Which is entirely accomplishable if one had no input into the setting. It is not limiting if the freedom of what kind of story gets written is still within the realm of player action: Do they challenge the pirate's supremecy of the seas? Do they thwart the evil wizard within his tower? Do they open a business and provide to the commercial success of the kingdom? Why is there such a thing as a special "strive for the best for my character" mode, at all? I mean, your character isn't really doing that himself, in-character. He's just... acting and reacting based on how he feels. Saving villages because he feels that's the right thing to do, &c. If one were playing a hero saving a village, and acted to create the village, one could impose defensive positions to exploit later on in-character. This could cause a ramp-up of the forces arrayed against him by the DM, leading to balance issues. Well, like we said, they are interesting, for starters. Moreover, did the players come to the table to wander around town and see NPCs? Or did they come to, well, do something? They're looking for a situation that allows them to explore the nature of their characters. The characters do DO something because when they (the players) concieved the character in creation they pretty much have a handle on the nature of their characters. What exactly is there to explore when one is just 'acting and reacting based on he feels'. So published campaign settings are right out, then, too? And so is using the Monster Manual for creatures? Why? Have you memorized every facet of a setting? Is there no surprises left in Hyboria, or Mystara? And even a Hack'n'Slash player knows there are a thousand different scenarios which can include even the 'well known' monsters such as orcs. Pretending what? What's the point of spending more than five minutes on asking the innkeeper for information at all? Nothing's happening there. You're basically just sitting through exposition anyway, aren't you? If the first shlub you interrogate on the street will just retell the stuff we just made up together anyway, is it really a big deal to get one less first-shlub-you-interrogate-on-the-street-tells-you-all-the-basics scenes out of the game? Nothing happening except some fun role-playing. Is every innkeeper the same ? Is every Inn used the same as the last? Would you even notice if you prejudged it to be 'nothing' ? You don't notice the difference there? We set up a conflict and some potential players in that conflict. At that stage, we did absolutely dick to talk about how that conflict would progress. How is that like a published module? You aren't supposed to talk about how to progress a conflict beyond the 'how did we get involved and what is the plan now' stage. Then, you do it. That's fun; not spending a game session introspecting how my character feels about the sky falling. Exploration and discovery of what, though? Are someone's old church basement, now filled with ghouls, or a big cave full of wyverns very interesting by themself? Is a small town, even? Indeed they are, as they are not things the player is likely to encounter OoC. I can spend all day wondering what a samurai is going to feel about a basement full of ghouls in his small town. And do. But, I can't know what will happen if that samurai and his friends enter the basement. Suspense... what's suspense? When you watch a movie, you know what's gonna happen in the general sense. Narrative convention and all. Can Babe the pig really not win his freakin' medal, can Diehard not kick all the bad guy's butts? What kind of story would that be? And I thought for sure Chow Yun Fat was going to live through the first movie I saw him in. He didn't. Now I never know if he will in the next ones or not. So, yeah, we pretty much elide the bits about hearing rumors about the bladeslinger because, well, listening to the GM spin out rumors for 30 minutes isn't that great when he could just give you the digest anyway. Roleplaying NPCs and scenes that are irrelevant to the actual story is a pointless acting exercise, isn't it? No, it's called not railroading your team into a story and allowing them to determine their own stories. Having heard some serious writers trying to explain what's in their heads a few times, I'd have to say that a lot of them don't, either. It just kind of... goes somewhere. You get a lot of that effect for free by just having more than one person "writing" together. But the trick is that they all have to be writing. Not one writer and three to six readers. You also tend to get stories that are incoherent or feature Rambo jumping out and destroying everythnig built up until that point.
CharlieRock 12-04-06, 09:22 AM	I do, too. I enjoy it so much that I want to do it when I GM, too. And so much that, when I'm making my own creative art, I want to take some of theirs and mix it in with mine. See how that works? Using one technique often doesn't preclude using another. In my example above, the players aren't making up ]all the NPCs as we go, are they? But that example does show you how the ability to freely pick up a bit of setting control whenever you want it doesn't ruin roleplaying or destroy "challenge". And the same can be said in reverse. Stepping aside of setting input (outside of actual character action) does not preclude an enjoyable role-playing experience. This is one of the things that the 'serious gamers' who are after that 'masterpiece moment' of role-playing are missing. Those moments just come naturally if you are having fun. And telling people that their style of gaming is somehow lesser or contrite (or inferring so) is the elitist, 'we are serious gamers, do not play unless you are as serious as we', kind of attitude that leads to fractured teamings and the near-death of the industry when CCGs (which are fun) started knocking all the RPG books off the shelves.
Loopy 12-04-06, 09:49 AM	Books: The only time a DM shouldn't allow books is if he's unfamiliar with the rules involved. If a player gives you a copy of said rules, it's now on you to read them. HA!
pres_man 12-04-06, 10:11 AM	Why? Have you memorized every facet of a setting? Is there no surprises left in Hyboria, or Mystara? And even a Hack'n'Slash player knows there are a thousand different scenarios which can include even the 'well known' monsters such as orcs. Isn't this his point? What does know intimidate details at the beginning of the set up matter when once things are set up and started "moving" things can change with various interactions. Basically an "entropy" effect, you may have known how things started but you don't necessarily know how they are going to develop. Also, I think several people here, should remember there is a (or there should be a) difference between player knowledge and character knowledge. Just because a player knows a bartender could be an ally, does not mean the character knows that, and in fact the character's personality may even turn the bartender off of helping.
Matthew77 12-04-06, 10:46 AM	Using one technique often doesn't preclude using another. In my example above, the players aren't making up ]all the NPCs as we go, are they? But that example does show you how the ability to freely pick up a bit of setting control whenever you want it doesn't ruin roleplaying or destroy "challenge". I've been thinking about this, and I'm willing to grant you this: Players creating their allies and familiar locations doesn't seem to detract from the game. If writing your backstory includes creating all the stats of your hometown, or if the PCs are employed by a temple of Pelor and the players help make up the high-priest's stats and personality, that should be harmless. However, I do believe that Players having input into the obstacles they face does ruin roleplaying and destroy challenge. If I knew all about the BBEG's stats and personality, and the details of his hideout before the game even started, that game will be less enjoyable for me. Yes, it's possible to ignore Player knowledge when making Character decisions, but having to do so is annoying, and becomes more so the more knowledge the Player has that the character doesn't. Example: Ignoring the player knowledge that fireballs heal iron golems is easy. Ignoring the player knowledge that you know exactly what the evil wizard's plans and resources are makes the game unenjoyable. (at least it would for me)
bitnine 12-04-06, 12:44 PM	However, I do believe that Players having input into the obstacles they face does ruin roleplaying and destroy challenge.Wait... where exactly in that post did 'having input' turn into 'knowing everything'?
CharlieRock 12-04-06, 12:55 PM	Isn't this his point? What does know intimidate details at the beginning of the set up matter when once things are set up and started "moving" things can change with various interactions. Basically an "entropy" effect, you may have known how things started but you don't necessarily know how they are going to develop. Also, I think several people here, should remember there is a (or there should be a) difference between player knowledge and character knowledge. Just because a player knows a bartender could be an ally, does not mean the character knows that, and in fact the character's personality may even turn the bartender off of helping. hmm, He has stated that if it isn't 'important to the story' then it is a waste of time, meaning that this setting has no background impertinent to the storyline. That pretty much means the players will not be making 'fluffy flavor text' but actual story-line plot points. To me, I took that to mean the players are placing NPCs important to the ongoing storyline in the setting. How then, is there to be any exploration (not introspection) of a setting in this event.
CharlieRock 12-04-06, 12:59 PM	Wait... where exactly in that post did 'having input' turn into 'knowing everything'? No, I'm turning the out-of-game process of creating the town into the in-game process of creating the town. ;) Right there, for one example. The entire process ,since it was not said 'a part' or even 'a large fraction' of the process is in-game. That means the players have full knowledge of what just got created ,the town.
bitnine 12-04-06, 01:21 PM	That means the players have full knowledge of what just got created ,the town.Examples that someone else used doesn't mean that you can simply say that 'having input' is a bad thing. A statement that having input ruins roleplaying and destroys challenge is simply incorrect. If he really meant to say the level of control and knowledge that was given in a previous example, it'd be nice to know. So go ahead and make the clarification if that's the case. Having input != quoted example.
CharlieRock 12-04-06, 01:53 PM	Examples that someone else used doesn't mean that you can simply say that 'having input' is a bad thing. A statement that having input ruins roleplaying and destroys challenge is simply incorrect. If he really meant to say the level of control and knowledge that was given in a previous example, it'd be nice to know. So go ahead and make the clarification if that's the case. Having input != quoted example. Well, there are many various degrees of 'having input'. That said, to continue a discussion, we have to use the examples giving by the poster as what he meant by 'having input'. He used a few. Kinda odd how a 'bladeslinger' they made up in a town overrun with (bad guy?) mercenaries : quickly became an ally :thinks: (I'd have done the same :plotting: ).
Matthew77 12-04-06, 01:55 PM	Wait... where exactly in that post did 'having input' turn into 'knowing everything'? Your point is correct, let me attempt to explain further. "Knowing everything" is used as an extreme example. If we can agree that "Knowing everything" detracts from the enjoyment of the campaign, I can then proceed to argue that "The more input the players have, the less fun the campaign is." However, if someone was to disagree and claim that "knowing everything" doesn't detract from their enjoyment, then I know not to even bother discussing finer degrees of knowledge with them. The logic of the argument is that (A) if players having some input is good, then (B) players having the maximum input (knowing everything) would also be good. If I can show that B is false, then either A is a flawed premise, or there is a point somewhere along the scale from zero input to maximum input where increasing input begins to decrease enjoyment. Specifically regarding the obstacles faced by the PCs: I think PCs input shoud be limited to very general requests made before beginning the campaign. Example: "I'm making a Paladin who has a special dislike for misuse of magic, so I think it would be fun for our opponents to be evil Wizards." IMO, any additional input (especially including such things as the Wizard's goals, resources and personality), that the Players provide will detract from the enjoyment of the campaign, up to the extreme example of the players "knowing everything" and the campaign being not enjoyable at all.
TwistedPuppy 12-04-06, 02:52 PM	I think the point bitnine is trying to make - and please correct me if I misunderstand - is that players should have input on the types of challenge they face. For example, maybe a player mentions they haven't been in a good dungeon crawl in a while, and it would be fun to do again. As a DM, I'm fine with that, and will work one into the campaign arc as quickly as I can. (That translates to probably a couple of weeks to design the thing.) If they want to face a BBEG who is bent on destroying their homes, or hunt down an organization of pirates and slavers, great. Happy to oblige them. I don't usually have much trouble adopting a campaign to those - usually just a change in the BBEG's occupation or giving him a trusted lieutenant to handle that aspect of his operation. If they want to fight a drow sorc/druid/MT with a half-ogre barbarian/frenzied berserker bodyguard, then I agree with Matthew77 that they're getting a little too specific. Of course, my players have found that giving me extra ideas is a good way to get slapped - by other players. They think my ideas are evil enough without help.
a_psh 12-04-06, 02:53 PM	Kinda odd how a 'bladeslinger' they made up in a town overrun with (bad guy?) mercenariesWell, they convinced him. It's not like they planned it elaborately. We were just chatting about Westerns at the time. They also decided that the mercenaries, with whom they had a fair bit in common, were going to be their enemies (and, through their own actions, "convinced" them of that quite a bit, too). So, what's your point? Although, honestly, who cares? "We want our characters to have an interesting ally" would've been, by itself, plenty of reason to throw in an interesting ally.
bitnine 12-04-06, 04:07 PM	I think the point bitnine is trying to make - and please correct me if I misunderstand - is that players should have input on the types of challenge they face.Wells, I might not go so far as to dictate 'should', but I'd definitely say that having even a substantive level of input does not mean that roleplaying gets ruined and challenge is destroyed. Here's something I typed in another thread:Let's take one of Tellenreikos's (my character's) traveling companions - whose name escapes me at the moment, so I'll call him Voliar. Voliar was the son of a great mage from a distant eastern kingdom, who disappointed his father with his lack of interest in magic and arcane study. Subsequently, Voliar's father performed arcane experimentations on his son, infusing him with sorcerous power and all but forcing him to practice the use of such. Voliar sought to escape this life and fled to a monastery in the kingdom in which the game took place, hoping to disconnect from his former life through ascetic study and meditation. However, shortly before the start of the game, news of agents of his father reached Voliar. So he joined the Last Resort (Tellenreikos' adventuring group) mainly to keep on the move and find strong allies (not that he told the other players everything up front).Now, Voliar's player - having written that backstory - had a good amount of input and, as one might expect, knowledge of his father. Voliar's father wasn't the focus of the campaign by any means, but it did look like one of the later game arcs was going to involve him somewhat prominently - though that unfortunately stopped a little short with the character's untimely demise. None of this 'ruined roleplaying' or any of the challenges provided by the game; in fact, the interaction was very interesting. Besides, keeping information differentiated from character knowledge is a skill. Some people do very well with it, others don't even try. It isn't even really an issue with a case like the above, when the input is information that is known in character. And I find it unlikely that any game becomes devoid of surprise or variation regardless of the amount of input given. That's quite short of a player handing the DM a stat block and saying, "Heya, here's the BBEG." While that is probably not going to occur, even considering such a case, I find it doubtful that roleplaying has been ruined and enjoyment levels soon drop to zero. You might even see shared setting examples that show some of these things quite well; when one DM picks runs a game in a setting developed by another and references him for accuracy of the developed elements and some underlying bits now and again - even though that developer is a player. Or, you might see a DM use a player who is good about keeping knowledge seperate as a rules resource with some level of disclosure.
CharlieRock 12-04-06, 10:21 PM	I think the point bitnine is trying to make - and please correct me if I misunderstand - is that players should have input on the types of challenge they face. There is a good amount of input into the players have into a setting, and a bad amount. Equal share (I add something, the players each add something else) is quantitatively too much. Well, they convinced him. It's not like they planned it elaborately. We were just chatting about Westerns at the time. They also decided that the mercenaries, with whom they had a fair bit in common, were going to be their enemies (and, through their own actions, "convinced" them of that quite a bit, too). So, what's your point? Although, honestly, who cares? "We want our characters to have an interesting ally" would've been, by itself, plenty of reason to throw in an interesting ally. Your not going to convince me that a philosophically friendly swordsmen was created by the players with any other idea except that there is now a potential ally to go find. Allies are fine, except that unless they are part of the character creation process ('I'm making a squad of Archers, because my character is Robin Hood') it is up to the DM. (You see Little John crossing the bridge as well, Robin.). Kind of like how I don't go and triple the number of the Sheriff's men on a whim (mid-encounter or session)because I decided it would be neat to surround the party. Wells, I might not go so far as to dictate 'should', but I'd definitely say that having even a substantive level of input does not mean that roleplaying gets ruined and challenge is destroyed. Here's something I typed in another thread:Let's take one of Tellenreikos's (my character's) traveling companions - whose name escapes me at the moment, so I'll call him Voliar. Voliar was the son of a great mage from a distant eastern kingdom, who disappointed his father with his lack of interest in magic and arcane study. Subsequently, Voliar's father performed arcane experimentations on his son, infusing him with sorcerous power and all but forcing him to practice the use of such. Voliar sought to escape this life and fled to a monastery in the kingdom in which the game took place, hoping to disconnect from his former life through ascetic study and meditation. However, shortly before the start of the game, news of agents of his father reached Voliar. So he joined the Last Resort (Tellenreikos' adventuring group) mainly to keep on the move and find strong allies (not that he told the other players everything up front).Now, Voliar's player - having written that backstory - had a good amount of input and, as one might expect, knowledge of his father. Voliar's father wasn't the focus of the campaign by any means, but it did look like one of the later game arcs was going to involve him somewhat prominently - though that unfortunately stopped a little short with the character's untimely demise. None of this 'ruined roleplaying' or any of the challenges provided by the game; in fact, the interaction was very interesting. Voliar's backstory is great. And ,provided a plot hook for a future campaign. Did Voliar's player actually get to roll up (or participate in) that character's father (and these 'agents')? That is an example of 'not too much' input. Creating a city (non-hometown) with stock allies already placed within (by the players) that is the focus of the next adventure is an example of 'too much' input. If the DM decided to have the mercenaries reinforced (prior to play) by a rogue sect of clerics without player approval, would be: Outside of the creative process described, and seen as abuse of position by the players (who fully expect to be involved in the process of creating these new bad guys).
a_psh 12-05-06, 12:19 AM	Your not going to convince me that a philosophically friendly swordsmen was created by the players with any other idea except that there is now a potential ally to go find.He wasn't philosophically friendly to start out with. He was just philosophically voracious. The first scene they encountered was townspeople trying to convince him to fight on their behalf, and one of the characters stood up very strongly for him not getting involved. Then they wanted him in the story so they convinced him to try their philosophy anyway. Outside of the creative process described, and seen as abuse of position by the players (who fully expect to be involved in the process of creating these new bad guys).Why? Once again, how does using one technique preclude another?
CharlieRock 12-05-06, 12:40 AM	Why? Once again, how does using one technique preclude another? If you 'surprised' your players by adding a rogue sect of clerics (either when they weren't looking, or prepared before the game) in with the mercenaries, that is outside the parameters of the creation process given in your example.
a_psh 12-05-06, 12:51 AM	If you 'surprised' your players by adding a rogue sect of clerics (either when they weren't looking, or prepared before the game) in with the mercenaries, that is outside the parameters of the creation process given in your example.Why? I put the mercenaries there, too (though, as I said, they chose to make them full-blown villains in this storyline).
CharlieRock 12-05-06, 01:03 AM	Why? I put the mercenaries there, too (though, as I said, they chose to make them full-blown villains in this storyline). You were using 'communal' input in the setting. When did you preclude the group's input? If your 'pulling strings behind the screen' , doesn't that mean that the group is not wholly involved in the setting. :ahem:
a_psh 12-05-06, 02:13 AM	You were using 'communal' input in the setting. When did you preclude the group's input? If your 'pulling strings behind the screen' , doesn't that mean that the group is not wholly involved in the setting. :ahem:Part of "communal" input, if you want to call it that, is accepting what others put in.
CharlieRock 12-05-06, 08:50 AM	Part of "communal" input, if you want to call it that, is accepting what others put in. So, the players didn't know about the mercenaries? The point I'm trying to get you to clarify is how much input do players get on the bad guys themselves. Did they approve of them before you made them? Did they roll them up? Design the lair?
a_psh 12-05-06, 10:58 AM	So, the players didn't know about the mercenaries? The point I'm trying to get you to clarify is how much input do players get on the bad guys themselves. Did they approve of them before you made them? Did they roll them up? Design the lair?THEY DECIDED THEY WERE ACTUALLY GOING TO *BE* BAD GUYS. As in, they could've decided not to treat them like bad guys and try to get friendly with them or just go on their way.
TwistedPuppy 12-05-06, 11:30 AM	THEY DECIDED THEY WERE ACTUALLY GOING TO *BE* BAD GUYS. As in, they could've decided not to treat them like bad guys and try to get friendly with them or just go on their way. So were they really "bad guys" or just some mercenaries that the characters arbitrarily decided would be labeled that way? It's one thing if the actions of the characters turned those NPCs into major villains, something else if you're just letting them pick the bad guys.
LCD2YOU 12-05-06, 12:15 PM	I agree with Charlie. The Players can contribute a great deal to the game by helping to flesh out the city or regions they are from, but not mush else. Even then, when they present it to the DM, I think it is the DM's job to change things to make it not always what the player's think it is. In the campaign I was a player in, I presented the DM with 100 pages of backstory for my character. NPCs in town, rivalries he had with some of them, friendship he (thought) had with others and such. Places I had been to, thins I did in some places, etc., I included in my backstory. My DM used it all but changed it on me ever so slightly. A NPC I thought was someone who didn't like my character actually saw great potential in my character. He thought I was wasting my talents being a ne'er well do and that is why he treated him that way. Another NPC I thought was my friend was just using me for information and when I stopped being useful to him, he was less than friendly. Obviously if the DM had taken what I said verbatem then the "fun" of finding these things out, some at the most inoppurtune time, would have been lost. So while I like players fleshing things out, it does not mean that what they wrote down and what they think happens is actually what is going on. As for places they've never seen, I think players should be kept out of the process as where's the mystery of where you're going if you already know what's there?
a_psh 12-05-06, 02:38 PM	So were they really "bad guys" or just some mercenaries that the characters arbitrarily decided would be labeled that way? It's one thing if the actions of the characters turned those NPCs into major villains, something else if you're just letting them pick the bad guys.Whoever you decide to oppose is the "bad guy," in the sense that you've made them the antagonist. Is that so weird?
CharlieRock 12-05-06, 03:17 PM	Whoever you decide to oppose is the "bad guy," in the sense that you've made them the antagonist. Is that so weird? No, and I place a potpouri of NPC factions to oppose or ally to in my game. But, I placed most of them (including the ones the players havn't met yet). What I thought was 'wierd' was that you have the entire team sitting down writing/rolling up the world, and then picking their allies and enemies from the product of that. It'd be like being there when all the NPCs to a Twilight Zone episode were rolled up, you already know which ones are the aliens and what that book really says.
a_psh 12-06-06, 05:59 AM	The short version: Sharing things is easy. As a gaming group, you can share whatever you want as long as you can get your heads out of your collective asses and stop repeating a few tired old mantras that didn't make much sense when they were written and make absolutely no sense now. Sharing things doesn't mean everybody's touching everything all the time. "Hey, I like this thing. Can I borrow if for a while? Like a long while, maybe?" is a completely legitimate thing to ask. Similarly, if there's a thing that only one person wants to touch and so he's the only one touching it, that's a kind of sharing, too. There's nothing wrong with sitting back and letting the GM make everything up for a while (or forever, even) if nobody else wants to play with the stuff you've thrust into his hands. But it's destructive and moronic to formalize this stuff, to make it as rigid as possible, to make up all these rules about who can and can't touch what all the time. Maybe Setting Authority is like a Big Yellow Truck and only one person in your little sandbox likes playing with Big Yellow Trucks, so he's the only one driving it around and filling it with sand. That's cool. The game/sandbox functions just fine under that model. But all I see from all too many respondents the moment I even begin to describe doing it another way is "Mine! My Big Yellow Truck!" Who the hell cares? Share the damn truck with your sandbox buddies! If nobody wants it, you can play with it all you want without there being any disagreements about it later, anyway.
CharlieRock 12-06-06, 06:05 AM	Who the hell cares? Share the damn truck with your sandbox buddies! If nobody wants it, you can play with it all you want without there being any disagreements about it later, anyway. Well, we do these as well. But, by alternating the DM. :) Our yellow truck is just not that big to begin with.
starfire311 12-06-06, 08:55 AM	"Knowing everything" is used as an extreme example. If we can agree that "Knowing everything" detracts from the enjoyment of the campaign, I can then proceed to argue that "The more input the players have, the less fun the campaign is." and using this "logic" you can proove that the most fun campaign is one in which the players know nothing about it and have zero input, this means no backstories, not even knowing your characters race/sex/class/levels/skills this would be the absolute most fun campaign. personally I think it is nigh impossible to proove anything when it comes to fun, some many people enjoy so many different things, and all to varying degrees. However, if someone was to disagree and claim that "knowing everything" doesn't detract from their enjoyment, then I know not to even bother discussing finer degrees of knowledge with them. I would actually be a dissenter on this issue, I don't think knowing everything detracts from the fun at all(I could argue that it is impossible to know everything, so I would assume you are speaking of knowledge that approaches everything), it allows me to have a different type of fun, I can focus more on the roleplaying of my character and exploring my characters personality and interacting with the group, than focusing on the exploration of the world, I have played many modules multiple times, and I would without a doubt say I have fun the 1st time and teh 2nd time, but I find different things to have fun with the second time, maybe there are small nuances that I missed the 1st time that I can have fun picking up on. Heck I have seen Stars Wars many many times, and I still enjoy watching. The logic of the argument is that (A) if players having some input is good, then (B) players having the maximum input (knowing everything) would also be good. I dont necessarily agree, I think just about all things are better in moderation, and you need to find the "sweetspot" where you maximize enjoyment from player input, and maximize the enjoyment you still get from exploring the world.
CharlieRock 12-06-06, 10:16 AM	I would actually be a dissenter on this issue, I don't think knowing everything detracts from the fun at all If it doesn't detract at all. Then, what exactly did you mean by this contradicting statement? I think just about all things are better in moderation, and you need to find the "sweetspot" where you maximize enjoyment from player input, and maximize the enjoyment you still get from exploring the world. Because it looks like a bunch of doubletalking to me. :shifty:
On_the_wings_of_TPK 12-06-06, 02:14 PM	I think we can all agree that there is a big difference between a player knowing their own stats/race/class/etc, and knowing the BBEG's stats/race/class/etc. In some types of camapigns, it may be ok for the everyone to sit down, and decide together whom the BBEG is. And what their own allies are. And yet in others it wouldn't be as fun. Take a murder mistery for example. Would it be as much fun if you knew that it was professor plum in the libary with the candle stick, before the game even began? Or would it be more fun for the players to have to search the rooms looking for signs of the foul act. then talk to the whitnesses, and etc, and discover whom it was with what? They can pretend they do not know. But if they help write the plot, and decide everything with the DM, they all they are is pretending. Would actual real discovery and surprise, not be more fun then pretending to be surprised? As for wheather or not the DM's role sets the challenge. I do not believe the DM's role, has anything to do with setting the challenge. DM-Bot 6000 (great example by the way) can be turned to whatever difficulty setting is reqquested. Just as any other style of DMing can be difficult, or easy. It is however the individual DM, and the way they administraight their role, that will determine the challenge. As far as answaering Hamham's question about what a DM has over an NWN AI. The capacity to learn and surpase its orginal programming. Sappose you wanted to go somewere in NWN that had not yet been progammed into the servers. The AI can not allow you to adventure off the map, as it has no progaming instructions for how to ajudicate that. Instead your chaarcter runs into the 4th wall, and can go no further. Untill a program extends the world, and tells the AI how to adjudicate that. But then you are still confined to what the programmer has added, nothing more. Now sappose you choose to adventure off the map with a living breathing DM, and not DM-Bot 6000. instead of hitting the 4th wall, being stuck there, the DM just starts adlibbiing off their buts. Its may not be perfect, but it is still better then nothing. The AI can not also adapt your tactics or style of play. It knows the best tactis, as programmed into it, by a programmer. But it does not have the capaicity to think, and truely improvise. A Human will be able to be creative, and think out side of the box. they will truely be able to interact with you. DM - bot 6000 will only be able to choose the best number out of its finite list of responces. Sappose you went up to a NPC in a computer game, and started a conversation. (With your mouth, and words, not your sword.) DM-Bot 6000 has only a finiate list of responces that the NPC can say. You also only have a finite programmed list of what your PC can say. With table top, you can say whatever you can think of, and the NPC has a human controller, who can adapt, and come up with the bnest responce, and does not require a liost of preprogrammed responces.
Zeik_Sephiroth 12-06-06, 05:56 PM	I don't know if this question has already been answered or not but, can a DM limit which kind of player character classes are used in a campaign? My a-hole cousin says that he won't let me use my ninja character and I want to know if he can do that or not.
a_psh 12-06-06, 06:03 PM	I think we can all agree that there is a big difference between a player knowing their own stats/race/class/etc, and knowing the BBEG's stats/race/class/etc.Sure. And there's a huge difference between letting the GM handle certain things by himself because the group considers it fun or convenient and having the GM be a dictator for its own sake. As GM, you don't have a right to any kind of unilateral authority. Despite what several decades of various companies' books might tell you, being possessive of any kind of authority is just plain stupid. You're not god. Get off your high horse, stop hording authority just for the hell of it, and pick up the reins when the group needs or wants you to rather than just jerking them around all the time for no reason. That's why it's best not to think about it as an "office" at all. Oftentimes, why you're doing something is as important as what you're doing. The capacity to learn and surpase its orginal programming.I suggest dropping the "AI" conversation. Simply put, nobody here has a meaningful understanding of what artificial intelligence actually is or does. Further discussion would just be a giant, purposeless wank.
Matthew77 12-06-06, 09:37 PM	As GM, you don't have a right to any kind of unilateral authority. Despite what several decades of various companies' books might tell you, being possessive of any kind of authority is just plain stupid. Actually, yes I do. Its My campaign world, and My game. I invite players to join me in My game. In exchange for this priviledge, they recognize that regarding game matters, I make the final decisions. If you don't like my decisions, feel free to decline my invitation, but don't bug me by whining and complaining during a game session. All published works including PHB and DMG are merely suggestions containing recommendations and best practices supplied by other DMs, rules that worked well during their games that I can save time by adopting for use in my game. Now, because the people I'm inviting to join My game are usually personal friends, I have a vested interest in making sure they have a good time, and if I'm DMing for strangers, I usually hold strictly to the RAW, so we can benefit from shared expectations. I may, at my discretion, delegate any amount of authority and or responsibility to my players, even allowing them to take over world-building and letting them determine game mechanics, and this may make the game more fun for both the players and myself, but it still remains my game, and I can overrule them at any point. In fact, I'll go so far as to say that I don't invite a collection of friends over to my house to play D&D. I invite them over to my house for a fantasy role-playing session, and explain that we'll be using the published 3.5 D&D rules as a starting place for the structure of the game. If the game you play in has a single DM, then you are just fooling yourself if you think he doesn't have final authority. Even if you think you have input as a player, you really just have a DM who is delegating a lot of authority. EDIT: Thought of a good analogy - the Doctor and Patient relationship. You can pick from many Doctors, but when doing so you realize that the doctor has final authority over what treatments get prescribed. The patient can offer suggestions, ask questions and if he doesn't like what the doctor prescribes he can go to a new doctor, but no matter what he does, he can't force the doctor to prescribe a treatment the patient wants and the doctor doesn't agree to. Self medication would be the analogue to writing a book instead of playing an RPG. In a Co-DM situation, there are several options. 1) One DM is a junior partner, and is really just a player with a lot of delegated authority. 2) Several DM's take turns, making the game belong to whoever's turn it is to be DM. In this case, you are really starting a new campaign each time you switch DMs, with starting conditions that happen to be identical to the ending conditions from the previous sesson. 3) Democracy D&D in which everyone votes on decisions. Now this is an interesting case. Most likely, the DM still has final authority, and is just delegating some decisions to group vote. But ask yourself.. do you really vote on everything? Do you vote on what spells the BBEG casts each round? Do you vote on what each shopkeeper has for sale? I guarentee you that someone in the group has the final say on each decision. That person is the DM. If the person with the final say varies from time to time, then you are back to the DM's taking turns, described in option 2. 4) I suppose you could try to make all decisions by random rolls, but someone still has to set up the options to choose randomly from. That someone is the DM. If you vote on what the random options should be, you are back to situation 3.
HamHam 12-06-06, 10:41 PM	Actually, yes I do. Its My campaign world, and My game. I invite players to join me in My game. In exchange for this priviledge, they recognize that regarding game matters, I make the final decisions. The fact that you call playing in your game a priviledge says everything that needs to be said about what's wrong with your attitude.
Matthew77 12-06-06, 10:56 PM	The fact that you call playing in your game a priviledge says everything that needs to be said about what's wrong with your attitude. Can you explain why? Lets say I'm holding a dinner party. I cook the dinner, I pick the menu. Its My Dinner Party. I invite the guests. I tell them if they want the privilege of eating my dinner, they have to obey my table manners. Don't like the fact that I make you cut your steak with a spoon? Then don't eat my food. If I didn't think my game (or dinner) was an enjoyable privilege, I would be disapointed and make sure I did better next time. Would you be happier if instead of claiming my games were a treasured privilege, I claimed that my games sucked and I had to beg people to join them, even if that meant playing with rules I hated? Would that make me more like the kind of DM you prefer? Someone with no pride or respect for their creations? privilege n 1: a special advantage or immunity or benefit not enjoyed by all If joining my game isn't a privilege, then what is it? a Right? does that mean I have to allow anyone that knocks on my door to join My game (or My Dinner Party) ?
Comus 12-07-06, 12:03 AM	Can you explain why? Lets say I'm holding a dinner party. I cook the dinner, I pick the menu. Its My Dinner Party. I invite the guests. I tell them if they want the privilege of eating my dinner, they have to obey my table manners. Don't like the fact that I make you cut your steak with a spoon? Then don't eat my food. If I didn't think my game (or dinner) was an enjoyable privilege, I would be disapointed and make sure I did better next time. Would you be happier if instead of claiming my games were a treasured privilege, I claimed that my games sucked and I had to beg people to join them, even if that meant playing with rules I hated? Would that make me more like the kind of DM you prefer? Someone with no pride or respect for their creations? privilege n 1: a special advantage or immunity or benefit not enjoyed by all If joining my game isn't a privilege, then what is it? a Right? does that mean I have to allow anyone that knocks on my door to join My game (or My Dinner Party) ? When you are a host, you serve those that come to the table. Their needs come before yours. And, as a point, if someone asks to join your game (or dinner party), it is extremely rude to refuse them without cause.
Greg K 12-07-06, 01:31 AM	When you are a host, you serve those that come to the table. Their needs come before yours. And, as a point, if someone asks to join your game (or dinner party), it is extremely rude to refuse them without cause. Wrong. If I tell them I'll be making Italian, I am under no obligation to cook Chinese, because they want it. Declining the invitation is acceptable. Showing up and demanding Chinese is rude behavior on the part of the guest.
a_psh 12-07-06, 02:03 AM	Actually, yes I do. Its My campaign world, and My game. I invite players to join me in My game. In exchange for this priviledge, they recognize that regarding game matters, I make the final decisions.What about the privilege of their company? Isn't that worth something to you? I don't know about you, but, if I'm throwing a dinner party, it's because I really like the people I'm inviting and am willing to cook for them and stuff if it means I'll have the pleasure of their company. And, yeah, the fact that I went and did all that cooking and place-setting and stuff gives me some social cachet in the situation, because I just went and did all that, but I'd be a total tool if I was actually looking to spend or abuse that social cachet, inviting people to my dinner party because I just wanted to lord over a dinner party. I mean, who throws a dinner party just so he can feel superior to his friends? In fact, I'll go so far as to say that I don't invite a collection of friends over to my house to play D&D. I invite them over to my house for a fantasy role-playing session, and explain that we'll be using the published 3.5 D&D rules as a starting place for the structure of the game.And what are they contributing? So far, your whole "dinner party" thing really makes it sound like they're just asses to fill seats while you show off in front of them. Show me that that isn't the case. If the game you play in has a single DM, then you are just fooling yourself if you think he doesn't have final authority. Even if you think you have input as a player, you really just have a DM who is delegating a lot of authority.If I'm the GM and I'm not doing that, I'm not doing that. Do I have a veto on something as GM? Yes. Everybody has a veto on something. There are certain things you just can't do to the shared imagined space. This is an inherent part of the social contract of a game. The trick is, that veto should never really pop up. The whole point of that big social layer is that you can negotiate what happens in the shared imagined space rather than just ripping it to shreds with a torrent of unilateral decisions. I'm not here to veto crap, nor to lord it over the players. I'm here to play a freakin' game. Together. I'm here to throw out an idea and get some ideas back and mix them up and make a story out of it, and to have fun making that story and learn something about my friends in process, too. If I wanted to put on a one-man show, why the hell would I play an RPG for that? 3) Democracy D&D in which everyone votes on decisions. Now this is an interesting case. Most likely, the DM still has final authority, and is just delegating some decisions to group vote. But ask yourself.. do you really vote on everything? Do you vote on what spells the BBEG casts each round? Do you vote on what each shopkeeper has for sale? I guarentee you that someone in the group has the final say on each decision. That person is the DM. If the person with the final say varies from time to time, then you are back to the DM's taking turns, described in option 2.See the sandbox analogy, above. Consensus is not voting. It's the fluid, often unstated, sharing of various kinds of authority that you should be after here. Acknowledged enough that it's not just a ouija board kind of experience, but not a parliamentary debate. Just, y'know, stuff. Stuff you do together. Casual. Informal. Sharing like you learned in kindergarten or whatever. Y'know, the thing you do pretty much constantly around your friends. Why is this such a hard concept for D&D players to grasp?
a_psh 12-07-06, 02:04 AM	Can you explain why? Lets say I'm holding a dinner party. I cook the dinner, I pick the menu. Its My Dinner Party. I invite the guests. I tell them if they want the privilege of eating my dinner, they have to obey my table manners. Don't like the fact that I make you cut your steak with a spoon? Then don't eat my food. If I didn't think my game (or dinner) was an enjoyable privilege, I would be disapointed and make sure I did better next time. Would you be happier if instead of claiming my games were a treasured privilege, I claimed that my games sucked and I had to beg people to join them, even if that meant playing with rules I hated? Would that make me more like the kind of DM you prefer? Someone with no pride or respect for their creations? privilege n 1: a special advantage or immunity or benefit not enjoyed by all If joining my game isn't a privilege, then what is it? a Right? does that mean I have to allow anyone that knocks on my door to join My game (or My Dinner Party) ?Look at yourself. You're going so far as to capitalize "My". Why, why, why is it all YOURS? When you get together with a few friends to watch a movie, do you somehow own the fun because you brought the video along or because you're watching on your TV? Or are the lot of you, just, I dunno, watching a damn movie because you're friends? You're talking endlessly about what you do for the rest of the group without any whiff of what you get back out of it. What do you get out of it? What do your friends contribute? Do you let them contribute at all? Or are they just sitting there cutting steaks with a spoon because it's YOUR party and YOU told them to?
Magnus_the_Mad 12-07-06, 02:37 AM	Look at yourself. You're going so far as to capitalize "My". Why, why, why is it all YOURS? Why not? he did the work so it's his to share. When you get together with a few friends to watch a movie, do you somehow own the fun because you brought the video along or because you're watching on your TV? Or are the lot of you, just, I dunno, watching a damn movie because you're friends? You may not own the fun, but it's rude to just get up and help yourself to my fridge without asking. What the heck is your point? This can go into so many different tangents it's not funny. They're watching the movie to have fun. Where in the poster's thread did he exclude this factor? I didn't see that statement at all. Maybe because you are doing that little word twisting thing that you do whenever you disagree with someone. You're talking endlessly about what you do for the rest of the group without any whiff of what you get back out of it. What do you get out of it? What do your friends contribute? Do you let them contribute at all? Or are they just sitting there cutting steaks with a spoon because it's YOUR party and YOU told them to? His payback is the company that chooses to show up and be a part of his game with him. The players aren't obligated by a long shot. They show up because they want to be there and he wants them to be there. I would gather that he gets the enjoyment of running a fun game for his group out of this deal, just like the players get to have fun playing with each other. The players major contribution to making this whole thing work is showing up with their character and attempting to have fun playing that character. Dude, you just hate authority in any form and your posts have proved that. This isn't a soap box to be spouting "down with the man" type of garbage. No one is saying that just because the DM is running the game that the players have no say or input at all, but that there is a limit as to what they have say or input in as granted by the DM. You take things to extremes man. There seems to be no middle ground with you at all. It's either "the DM is an egotistical jack ass" or "let's all hold hands and sing songs by the campfire" when it comes to your comparisons on how a group should play D&D. There are varying degrees but you are not seeing them. The dinner party makes perfect sense. The host (DM) prepares the food (lets just say that this is the adventure material), sets the table (prepares the gaming area), invites the guests (players), entertains the guests (runs the game) and tries to ensure that they have a good time (both situations). The guests, in turn, show up if they wish and partake in the fun. Declining the invitation is not necessarily rude because other more pressing things may have come up.
a_psh 12-07-06, 04:32 AM	Dude, you just hate authority in any form and your posts have proved that.No, I hate the same stupid crap that people have been regurgitating for 30 years without ever thinking critically about it or even thinking about whether it's what they actually do. This isn't a soap box to be spouting "down with the man" type of garbage. No one is saying that just because the DM is running the game that the players have no say or input at all, but that there is a limit as to what they have say or input in as granted by the DM.It's a friggin' social event! This may be lost to a lot of geeks, but you can do something as a group without somebody being this big mediator. And you can even have one person doing most of the work without being this big mediator. You take things to extremes man. There seems to be no middle ground with you at all. It's either "the DM is an egotistical jack ass" or "let's all hold hands and sing songs by the campfire" when it comes to your comparisons on how a group should play D&D. There are varying degrees but you are not seeing them.The conventional opinion is an extreme. It's illusionism, like your sand-selling example (which isn't actually what you're doing in play, by the way; it's more like you're using the rules as this kind of superego so you can ouija-board your way around... I wrote a long post about it, lost it to a power failure, and didn't have the time to rewrite it). There's a problem here, which is that everybody repeats the same tired old BS that's been the standard way to write about GMing for 30 years and nobody ever notices that that's not the way they actually play. Absolutism doesn't work in a shared imagined space. Think about it. You're all sitting there at the table imagining fictional events. There's no chance in hell that all of you are imagining the exact same thing all the time. To say "I decide everything that happens in the world" is meaningless, because the only way you can interact with the picture in somebody else's head is to go through him, anyway. And, whether you let him speak up or tell him to shut up, that person is adding his own details to the picture in his head; he can't help it. So, in order to make all that imagination stuff actually work, you have to open it back up. Let your friend put parts of the picture in his head back into the shared imagined space (that's the only way you're really sharing it in the first place). Otherwise, you're all just puttering in your own little visions of the game without making anything coherent come out. Everybody talks about GMing in this stilted, nonsensical, unreal way. That's what we're used to from the books. From old D&D and from West End Star Wars and from Vampire (oh, dysfunctional Vampire!) and from D&D3e and from pretty much every mainstream RPG book. They all have that section and it's always the same. The GM is god. The GM is master of the world. The GM writes the story. The GM does all the work but gets to have all the fun. Blah blah. But that's not how people actually play. Maybe it's time to stop pretending? If there's any kind of coherent shared imagined space being created, you're already managing authority somehow and somewhere. You're probably doing it subconsciously, navigating it like any other social situation, because people tend to be pretty good at that. There are many benefits to be had -- mostly for designers -- from not leaving that all as subconscious crap you do and then pretend never happened, from actually acknowledging how things work at the table and why. It lets you see what works and what doesn't, and create play procedures that specifically complement the social contract of the group. Just as your swanky dinner party gets dumb when the host stops thinking about it as a friendly get-together, your game gets worse when the GM really buys into all that stuff about being god. When he's no longer running the game the way he does because it's functional or convenient or it's what the group as a whole wants him to do, but when he feels entitled somehow. When it becomes an "office".
Comus 12-07-06, 08:43 AM	Wrong. If I tell them I'll be making Italian, I am under no obligation to cook Chinese, because they want it. Declining the invitation is acceptable. Showing up and demanding Chinese is rude behavior on the part of the guest. Yet that has absolutely nothing to do with what I said. If you're playing Vampire, and someone shows up wanting to play Star Wars, then they're out of luck. I'm saying that the players shouldn't be bowing down and worshipping this man. It's the DM's job to make sure the players have fun. It's not the player's job to make sure the DM has fun. Similarly, you don't go to someone's dinner party and expect to cook for them. If he then goes and complains that you cooked Chinese instead of Italian, well, that's gone well past the realm of rediculous.
Matthew77 12-07-06, 08:54 AM	Similarly, you don't go to someone's dinner party and expect to cook for them. If he then goes and complains that you cooked Chinese instead of Italian, well, that's gone well past the realm of rediculous. You mean exactly like someone complaining that your campaign world is Core only instead of Core + Completes ??!
starfire311 12-07-06, 09:01 AM	Yet that has absolutely nothing to do with what I said. If you're playing Vampire, and someone shows up wanting to play Star Wars, then they're out of luck. I'm saying that the players shouldn't be bowing down and worshipping this man. It's the DM's job to make sure the players have fun. It's not the player's job to make sure the DM has fun. Similarly, you don't go to someone's dinner party and expect to cook for them. If he then goes and complains that you cooked Chinese instead of Italian, well, that's gone well past the realm of rediculous. I think you almost have it, but IMO it is indeed the players job to make sure the DM has fun, it is also the players job to make sure the other players are having fun, everyone should be trying to make it as enjoyable as possible for everyone else. This whole dinner party analogy aint the best either, they are similar in that it is one person hosting an event, but in DnD the DM is not necessarily the host.
Epicweaver 12-07-06, 09:18 AM	S/he is also the adjudicator of the rules. And I think here in lies the problem. S/he also has the right to change any rules within the books that s/he feels the need to. But it it is generally accepted that to do so should have a good reason, and that the player should be notified in advance when such a change is coming. The Dm must also be fair and consist with the rules at all times. However this does grant the Dm the power of the final say over any rules dispute. However that being siad, the players do have the right to leave, or discontinue playing at anytime. Thus the Gm should never abuse this power. But what is an acceptable use of this authority, and what is an abuse? I think the DM should make a ruling on the rules in two circumstances, 1) S/he has decided that they do not like the feel and/or possible abuses or clunkiness of a particular rule and will be changing it in future sessions, informing the players prior to the ruling. 2) Game has halted because of a rules dispute, in order to keep game moving an ad hoc resolution is given by DM fiat. The ruling might be (and probably is) wrong, but it's just used as a method to keep the gaming moving as opposed to halting game entirely to spend 20 minutes figuring out all the rules from multiple sourcebooks. Who then is the authority on what books are avable? Definately the DM at my table. If I don't like a book and you're playing in my game, you won't be using it. All this information is given in the house rules, and if you're sitting down to play you've accepted the house rules. can a player demand that a certain source book be allowed? can the DM not allow a book? And if so for what reason? Demand? Sure, doesn't mean I'll allow it. Sure I can reject anything that comes along. I don't really need a reason, but 99% of the time it's usually directly related to flavor, balance, or publisher. This also leads us into who invites the players. I was under the impression that it was the DM who invited the players to play in his/her game. Is this no longer the case? Do the players have the authority to add or remove other players. As a social environment, it's generally up to the group as a whole to decide whether more players need to be added or not. Some groups like to run small, others like to run large. Bigger groups tend to be more work in some areas and less in others, and vice versa. In any case, I find it in bad taste for anyone to invite anyone without talking to the group prior. Consideration and communication are key foundations for building a strong group. Along with the responciblities of running a fair and consistant world for the PCs to adventure in, the GM is also responcible for ensuring that the majority of poeple have fun the majority of the time. How much of that burden falls on the players? Energy, motivation, and enthusiasim are what the players should be bringing to game... I set the playing field and give you opportunities to do the things you want to do (usually from prior study of the player/character). It's a symbiotic relationship, where if either party is slacking it becomes more difficult for the other. I find the challenges of pulling wallflower players into the mix to be an art and reward when they come full circle. And this leads us into balance. I defined balance in another thread, so i won't do that here again. I will however say that the Dm is responcible for enforcing balance. But to what responciblities do the players have to balance themselves? In most cases as a DM, I've tried to keep the system and creation as balanced as possible through the implementation of house rules.. Most players are encouraged to optimize their characters simply because if one person does it and the rest don't, then there will be a disparity. You can roleplay and optimize at the same time quite well despite the social stigma. Also becuase the DM is the one who places, and controlls the challenges, be it trap or monster. the DM is the one who is responcible for balancing the encounters against the PCs. This is a fine line indeed. To difficult, and no one has fun as they die all the time. To easy and it becomes boring. But then that begs the question what is an ideal challenge? That's an open ended question that that's relative to the party in question. A single challenge will likely not always challenge each and every party member... The key to it is to even out all of the challenges, but still keep yourself within the boundaries of the campaign themes you've established for yourself.
Matthew77 12-07-06, 09:22 AM	No, I hate the same stupid crap that people have been regurgitating for 30 years without ever thinking critically about it or even thinking about whether it's what they actually do. This is what I actually do. I decide how many levels the high priest of Pelor has. I decide what spells the BBEG has memorize. I decide whether the setting of the game should be medieval european or oriental. I decide if I think Warlocks are overpowered. Because I like the people I game with and I want them to have fun, I discuss many decisions with them, and listen to their input, but the final decision is mine. It's a friggin' social event! This may be lost to a lot of geeks, but you can do something as a group without somebody being this big mediator. And you can even have one person doing most of the work without being this big mediator. I actually like the word "Mediator" a lot. Lets look at other social events and see if they have mediators. Dinner parties have hosts. Sports games have umpires/referees. Dances have DJs. Movies have directors. Talent shows have MCs. There's a problem here, which is that everybody repeats the same tired old BS that's been the standard way to write about GMing for 30 years and nobody ever notices that that's not the way they actually play. On the contrary. This is they way I play, and the way every gaming group I've ever been part of played. Admittedly, I've never played in one of your games, but I suggest you take your own advice. Next time you play, keep track of who actually makes the final decisions about the world and the plotlines. When you go into a mage's guild and ask them if you can purchase a spell to scribe into your spellbook, who actually decides "yes this mages guild will sell you that spell" ? So, in order to make all that imagination stuff actually work, you have to open it back up. Let your friend put parts of the picture in his head back into the shared imagined space (that's the only way you're really sharing it in the first place). Otherwise, you're all just puttering in your own little visions of the game without making anything coherent come out. This is a nice argument for relying on your players to provide creative input, but is irrelevant to the question of who has the final authority. You're back to two kids pointing their fingers and saying "bang you're dead", "no, you missed me". No matter how much input the players suggest, the DM makes the final call. The GM is god. Have you seen the word "God" in any of my posts? If you define "God" as : "having final authority over the rules and content of a game", then yes, the DM is god. The GM is master of the world. Subsistitute "campaign" for "world", and yes, the DM is. The GM writes the story. The setting and plot, yes. Players write the characters. The GM does all the work but gets to have all the fun. Never said anything remotely like this. Final authority over the campaign implies neither of these conclusions. If there's any kind of coherent shared imagined space being created, you're already managing authority somehow and somewhere. You're probably doing it subconsciously, navigating it like any other social situation, because people tend to be pretty good at that. There are many benefits to be had -- mostly for designers -- from not leaving that all as subconscious crap you do and then pretend never happened, from actually acknowledging how things work at the table and why. It lets you see what works and what doesn't, and create play procedures that specifically complement the social contract of the group. Yes, I manage authority by realizing that the final decision is mine, and then proceed to delegate and ask for input if I think it will improve the experience for everyone. My explicit social contract is, "If you want to play in my game, accept that I have authority over game decisions, and you might disagree or dislike some of those decisions." When he's no longer running the game the way he does because it's functional or convenient or it's what the group as a whole wants him to do, but when he feels entitled somehow. When it becomes an "office". The most functional and convenient way of running the game is for the DM to have authority over game decisions. The group is unanimous in this opinion, or else they wouldn't be playing. I don't know about feeling entitled. I usually feel honored by the responsibility, not entitled, but it absolutely is an "office" Office -n: 5. a position of duty, trust, or authority, esp. in the government, a corporation, a society, or the like.
CharlieRock 12-07-06, 09:23 AM	I don't know if this question has already been answered or not but, can a DM limit which kind of player character classes are used in a campaign? My a-hole cousin says that he won't let me use my ninja character and I want to know if he can do that or not. Unfortunately, he can. That's just the breaks, dude. If you can, roll with the punches until someone else DMs ,or he changes his mind. Also, looking for another team to play with might not be a bad idea. Usually DMs allow most any class if it means more players (based on small teams). You can force the issue then, by declaring the end of your participation in his game if he doesn't allow your ninja, but be prepared to back that up with actual will to do so. Sure. And there's a huge difference between letting the GM handle certain things by himself because the group considers it fun or convenient and having the GM be a dictator for its own sake. Before you and I trade posts on this issue further, I don't monopolyse the DM screen. In fact, I welcome a break from DMing. Over the years I have been elected as DM for so long (with players knowing full well the kind of games I ran) continuously. I had to force another player to DM finally. In my old team there was another guy who ran the games (DM/GM) and it seemed to be whoever was in the mood to, went with it. I still keep in touch with this guy, but work schedules are radically different as to make gaming with him hard (I work nights, while he is a day-walker). So, I ended up running the 'Night Shift Gamers', while he has a team of day-walkers. The fact that you call playing in your game a priviledge says everything that needs to be said about what's wrong with your attitude. Maybe, he is just that good. ;) When you are a host, you serve those that come to the table. Their needs come before yours. And, as a point, if someone asks to join your game (or dinner party), it is extremely rude to refuse them without cause. My proper occupation is chucking people out of the house once refusal of service has been decided. Naturally, I'm inclined to disbelieve your logic of comparison. ;)
deadDMwalking 12-07-06, 09:37 AM	I've been a player in many games, and most of them I've really enjoyed. As a player, I have the habit of referring to the game as belonging to the DM. When I DM, I also refer to it as my game. "In my campaign last week, the players finally fought the dragon they had been hunting." "Adam's game is getting really interesting. I found out that my character's wife - the one who died before I went adventuring, actually survived the burning building and was dragged off and enslaved. Of course I'm going to have to go after her. The fact that I refer to the game as belonging to the DM (whether that person is me or not) doesn't imply that others aren't a part of the game, or that the game is not a shared experience. I don't think anyone is arguing that players don't have an impact on the game. Even if final "authority" rests with the DM, that doesn't mean a player can't choose his own course. What it comes down to in the "average" game, there are two "roles". There is the DM who adjudicates actions, sets up the game world, and creates the challenges that the players will face. Then there are players. While there are usually more than one, they have an obligation to develop their character, and work to create a background (often in consultation w/ the DM) that will expand the world into something that they'll find interesting to play in, and work together to find a way they can be a "party". While some DMs might welcome input about what level the enemy should be, I think most would consider such mechanical details a detraction from the fun the group might have. I'm one of those. I do not want my players to know what kind of stats a creature has. I don't like players using their own knowledge in place of character knowledge. That doesn't mean a player wouldn't have fun if he "knows" everything. But, in general, that limits the amount of fun I can create for the group when they overcome a challenge they didn't expect and didn't already know the solution to. On the other hand, if I do my job poorly, they won't have fun either. A TPK is seldom enjoyable. In short, there is a certain amount players can and should contribute to the game. But, final authority should rest with the DM. While a player can create a class and suggest it, all classes should be approved by the DM. It is what ensures a fun game for everyone. If shared authority works, it might be because you have perfect individuals. But, if you have individuals that have any kind of selfish tendencies, you may need someone to rein them in when they get a little "crazy", understanding that their fun may come at the expense of the rest of the group. So, what is the DMs role? To be fair and earn the trust from the group, and decide finally what is and is not allowed in the game, as well as "telling" the story and incorporating the Players actions and motivations. What is the player's role? To develop a complete character that can work within the party setting that helps make the world richer and to trust the DM with the final decisions, and to offer input as much as possible, usually away from the table (before it is too late and sounds like complaints or whining).
CharlieRock 12-07-06, 09:40 AM	I've been a player in many games, and most of them I've really enjoyed. As a player, I have the habit of referring to the game as belonging to the DM. When I DM, I also refer to it as my game. Same here, dude. In the way you might refer to a type of video game. 'Oh, we were in one of Greg's games last week ...' or 'Tim's games rawk (or r teh suxxorz.).'
Matthew77 12-07-06, 10:21 AM	I've thought of another way to approach the question. Authority only exists if the power to enforce the decision exists. In any game, the only real power is the power to say "I'm not willing to play under those conditions." Any participant withdrawing from a game of D&D is a sad experience and lessens the game for everyone else. However, ask yourself this question. "Is there one person in this game whose withdrawal will make it impossible to complete the game?" Maybe, if your game is run by perfect consensus, it might be the case that the loss of any one person would just lessen the richness and diversity of the game, but not destroy it. In every game of D&D I've ever played, there has been one person whose absence made it impossible to proceed with the campaign. "Bob's gone and he knew what the BBEG's plans were, and what the floorplan of this dungeon is and where the holy artifact we're searching for is located." Now, someone else could always step up and say "okay, give me a few minutes and I'll come up with a plan that continues from where we left off when Bob went into a coma" But then you're not playing the same campaign anymore. You could also be in some sort of "democracy" D&D and just all vote on what you think the BBEG is really up to, and then pretend to be surprised when he kidnaps the princess, but IMO, that sounds fun for a creative writing exercise and totally boring for a D&D session. My conclusion is that if you can point to one member of the group and say "without Bob, we can't continue this campaign", that gives Bob authority over the game.
pres_man 12-07-06, 10:51 AM	A few thoughts. The dinner party analogy, if a host dicates to the guests how they may eat their meal (you have to cut it with a spoon), this seems remarkably close to a DM telling players how their characters have to act. In this case that is clearly stepping over the line in any kind of social situation. Such things are appropriate perhaps for a boss-employee dynamic, but not for a group of friends. Anyone that thinks that kind of behaviour is appropriate should really rethink their priorties. I think there should be a clear distinction what someone can try to enforce and what is reasonable for them to expect to enforce. Yes, when individuals don't have a lot of choices, then certain folk have more "power", the question is, just because they have more power in those cases does that mean it is appropriate for them to use/abuse said power? Claiming the DM has ultimate power because he can say no seems to be shell game there. The player could also say no to the game, so don't the players have the ultimate power not the DM? The DM can find new players (which would be a different campaign as well), sure. The players can find a new DM as well, including choosing to DM themselves. DMs who think they have absolute control are merely deluding themselves, and if they delude themselves so far to the point of think they can make any change on their whim, then any self-respecting players are quickly going to disappear. Sure players with low self-esteem will put up with all kinds of crazy crap (or players who like myself sometimes find it humorous to game with a bad DM, just to see how bad it can be), but that doesn't mean the DM is in the right, only that the players are weak willed. EDIT: I would also like to say that comparing a DM to a director of a movie is a bit idiotic. Do DMs give the players scripts and tell them to stick to the script or they are out of the game? If you don't do that, then I would suggest you stop using that analogy as it makes you look stupid. If you do give them scripts and tell them how their characters act then ...
archcomponent 12-07-06, 11:06 AM	The dinner party analogy is one of the most egotistical things that I have ever heard. If you really think that the DM is the only one who brings something to the table, you are flat-out wrong. A game is a pot luck. Everyone puts in something of worth, meaningful contributions. The players do not feed off of the grace and beneficience of the DM. And if the DM finds that taking this role is such a strain that he needs recompense in the form of unquestioned control over his players under threat of kicking them out of the house, that is one of the more awful things that I have ever heard. Consider a guest who brings a vegetarian dish and asks the party host if his meal can be prepared without egg yolks, as he is trying to watch his weight. And then the host responds that it is his party, and that the guest will eat yolks or get the hell out. Is that the right of the host? I do not care, it still makes him a terrible host, friend, and human being. Guest: Hi. Host: So what did you bring? Guest: Oh, I brought a mexican dish. Host: Did I not tell you nothing ethnic? You get to bring no mexican food to my party! Get out and do not come back unless you bring something else! Guest: But I really like mexican food, and plenty of our friends do, so I thought - Host: No! My party! I decide what people can bring, what people will eat, and how they will eat it! No mexican! I am the host thy lord and I have every right not to let you in! Guest: What exactly is your problem? Host: After all the effort I put in to this party, I get to own you! Now you do as I say for the privelage of attending my party, or you get to go home. Guest: But all of our friends - hey wait, you have a mexican dish on the table right there you made yourself! Host: That is it! For your impudence, if you want to attend my party now, you will not be allowed to wear pants! I, the host, command it!
Matthew77 12-07-06, 11:18 AM	The dinner party analogy, if a host dicates to the guests how they may eat their meal (you have to cut it with a spoon), this seems remarkably close to a DM telling players how their characters have to act. In this case that is clearly stepping over the line in any kind of social situation. No, its not. I'm inviting you to enjoy my meal. If the restrictions I place on that meal bother you, you are free to decline my invitation. If my group of long-time friends and I have a weekly ritual of the "spoon feast" and I am inviting you to join us, what would be rude is if you replied "spoons are stupid and outdated, I demand you let me eat with a fork instead." Claiming the DM has ultimate power because he can say no seems to be shell game there. The player could also say no to the game, so don't the players have the ultimate power not the DM? The DM can find new players (which would be a different campaign as well), sure. The players can find a new DM as well, including choosing to DM themselves. Did you read the rest of the post in which I addressed this issue? The DM can lose any number of players and the campaign will continue. If the players lose the DM, the campaign ends. Losing/replacing characters does not destroy the story. If it did, no character could ever die in a game. Losing/replacing the setting and the plot means you are in a new story. DMs who think they have absolute control are merely deluding themselves, and if they delude themselves so far to the point of think they can make any change on their whim, then any self-respecting players are quickly going to disappear. No, actually, I am not deluding myself. I have absolute control over my campaign. If I wake up the morning before the game session and decide arcane magic suddenly no longer works, just on the basis of my whim that morning, than those are the facts of the campaign world, whether the players like it or not. (now that I think about it, that might make for a great session). Usually my players expect a level of consistency in the campaign world and know that if something bizarre happens, there is an in-game reason for it, but the fact remains: The DM has the authority to change any aspect of the game world on their whim. The players do not. This is not a delusion. This is the reality of the game that I and my friends have agreed to play. (unlike Monopoly, in which we do not agree to grant one player authority to change the rules of the game at will.) Go to a gaming convention. Sign up for a D&D session described as "the characters are all rogues in a core-only, low magic setting." Sit down at the table and tell the DM you're playing a Warlock whose father is a guildmaster in the sorcerer's guild, and you'll find out who has absolute control over the game world. Having authority and deciding to exercise that authority in a heavy-handed manner are two completely seperate issues. Response to your Edit: I would also like to say that comparing a DM to a director of a movie is a bit idiotic. Please read the context before calling me an Idiot. That quote was a direct response to the claim that "social events don't have mediators". If the social event in question is "me and my buddies sit down to watch a movie", then the director of the movie is the mediator of that social experience, just as if the social event in question is "me and my buddies sit down to play a game of D&D", then the DM is the mediator of that social experience. *note that the mediator in each case has different roles, but both social events require a mediator to be sucessful.
Greg K 12-07-06, 11:20 AM	Consider a guest who brings a vegetarian dish and asks the party host if his meal can be prepared without egg yolks, as he is trying to watch his weight. And then the host responds that it is his party, and that the guest will eat yolks or get the hell out. Is that the right of the host? I do not care, it still makes him a terrible host, friend, and human being. Not the same thing. Here you are talking of somebody asking for a health reason.
pres_man 12-07-06, 11:21 AM	The DM has the authority to change any aspect of the game world on their whim. The players do not. Only if your players have no self-respect. If they do some, they will quickly make it clear that deciding things on a whim are out of line.
Matthew77 12-07-06, 11:27 AM	The dinner party analogy is one of the most egotistical things that I have ever heard. If you really think that the DM is the only one who brings something to the table, you are flat-out wrong. Then I guess its good that I have never claimed that the DM is the only one who brings something to the table. Consider a guest who brings a vegetarian dish and asks the party host if his meal can be prepared without egg yolks, as he is trying to watch his weight. and the host responds, "oh man, that stinks, because we're having quiche for the main course and custard for dessert. I guess you're going to have to skip this party, but maybe next time you can help me plan the menu so you can fully participate." Guest: Hi. Host: So what did you bring? Guest: Oh, I brought a mexican dish. Host: Did I not tell you nothing ethnic? You get to bring no mexican food to my party! Get out and do not come back unless you bring something else! Guest: But I really like mexican food, and plenty of our friends do, so I thought - Host: No! My party! I decide what people can bring, what people will eat, and how they will eat it! No mexican! I am the host thy lord and I have every right not to let you in! Guest: What exactly is your problem? Host: After all the effort I put in to this party, I get to own you! Now you do as I say for the privelage of attending my party, or you get to go home. Guest: But all of our friends - hey wait, you have a mexican dish on the table right there you made yourself! Host: That is it! For your impudence, if you want to attend my party now, you will not be allowed to wear pants! I, the host, command it! Allow me to rewrite this scenario with a host who still has absolute authority, but is no longer a jerk. Host: So what did you bring? Guest: Oh, I brought a mexican dish. Host: Did I not tell you nothing ethnic? I've designed this meal to share my grandmother's favorite dishes which are all european, because she was from Poland. Plus, I'm allergic to jalepeno peppers. Please don't bring any mexican food to my party! Could you come back with something else, and save the mexican food for some other time? Guest: But I really like mexican food, and plenty of our friends do, so I thought - Host: Yeah, I know, but I have a special menu planned for tonight, and if you'll remember we discussed this last week and agreed on the european theme. Maybe if you and the guys really want a mexican feast we can plan one for the future. Guest: Listen up Pal, I want mexican food and I want it now. I'm the guest so you better be nice to me! Plus, I drove Bob here tonight, so if I leave I'm taking him with me and ruining your party HA HA HA! Host: After all the effort I put into this party, I'm offended that you are trying to force me to eat something I'm allergic to. If you really must have mexican tonight, I'm going to have to ask you to eat it elsewhere and leave us in peace. Guest: But I smell nachos in the kitchen! Host: That's right, I know you guys love mexican, so I was going to surprise you with a side dish of nachos to spice up the meal, but since you've seen fit to insult and threaten me, I don't even feel like eating anymore. Don't expect another invitation to attend my dinners.
Matthew77 12-07-06, 01:31 PM	Only if your players have no self-respect. If they do some, they will quickly make it clear that deciding things on a whim are out of line. You do remember this is just a leisure time activity, right? Saying "you can not play a Warlock in my campaign" really doesn't involve the level of self-respect you seem to be implying. Not much of my sense of self-respect is contingent on what sort of imaginary powers my imaginary character has. Instead of saying "No self-respecting player would give full authority to the DM," I would say "any self-respecting player allows the DM to run his campaign, and doesn't throw a hissy fit when he doesn't get his way all the time." 'cause really.. who has more self-respect, the player that works with the situation he is given or the one who can't handle being told "No."
CharlieRock 12-07-06, 01:35 PM	Claiming the DM has ultimate power because he can say no seems to be shell game there. The player could also say no to the game, so don't the players have the ultimate power not the DM? The DM can find new players (which would be a different campaign as well), sure. The players can find a new DM as well, including choosing to DM themselves. A further interjection, please. If the players decide amongst themselves that Alexander the Great is going to be the DM. Doesn't that mean that they accept his authority? Until the next rotation/campaign/ session.
CharlieRock 12-07-06, 01:39 PM	Only if your players have no self-respect. If they do some, they will quickly make it clear that deciding things on a whim are out of line. That's what they made the DM screen for, man. :) So they won't know. "Whaddayamean the King was assassinated? I don't get my 1/3 of the kingdom for rescuing the fair princess?" "Naw, the evil wizard meant for her to be captured. As soon as you succeeded in rescuing her, he was driven to desperate measures to keep his grip of power." D&D is all one giant shell game, really.
pres_man 12-07-06, 02:06 PM	Allow me to rewrite this scenario with a host who still has absolute authority, but is no longer a jerk. :rofl: I thought you said you were going to rewrite where he is NO LONGER a jerk. Instead you have him continue to act like a jerk. Let's see, nobody is forcing him to eat the food that was brought, so nobody is making him eat anything he is algergic to. Also, he broke his own rule by making "ethinic" food. Frankly the guy seems like an ****-retentive idiot. Is that how you run your games? You think that kind of behaviour isn't jerk-like? Seriously? You do remember this is just a leisure time activity, right? I do, but do you? Why someone feels they must COMMAND others for a leisure activity, I don't understand that. Instead of saying "No self-respecting player would give full authority to the DM," I would say "any self-respecting player allows the DM to run his campaign, and doesn't throw a hissy fit when he doesn't get his way all the time." So now it is a hissy fit? Wow, a player saying they want to use a legitmate class is throwing a hissy fit? How little respect you must have for people who have different views from yours in your games if believe that. 'cause really.. who has more self-respect, the player that works with the situation he is given or the one who can't handle being told "No." And I would ask, who is more competent of a DM, one who can adjust their game and setting to the ideas and desires of the players or one who is so rigid in their design that anything out of the norm suddenly destroys the whole setting? A further interjection, please. If the players decide amongst themselves that Alexander the Great is going to be the DM. Doesn't that mean that they accept his authority? Until the next rotation/campaign/ session. Why? Why should they have to wait. If old Alexander starts acting insane, why shouldn't they step and say, "Dude, chill out. We're here to have fun. Stop taking everything so seriously." That's what they made the DM screen for, man. :) So they won't know. "Whaddayamean the King was assassinated? I don't get my 1/3 of the kingdom for rescuing the fair princess?" "Naw, the evil wizard meant for her to be captured. As soon as you succeeded in rescuing her, he was driven to desperate measures to keep his grip of power." D&D is all one giant shell game, really. Which will fly for one time, but a DM that consistently does that will quickly lose any self-respecting players. People may put up with being screwed over for a time, but after awhile it gets old.
pres_man 12-07-06, 02:08 PM	Here is a fundamental question about gaming. Is the game about the PCs with the setting merely being the backdrop that the PCs are currently in, or is the setting the focus with merely the PCs as the eyes the players use to see into it?
Comus 12-07-06, 02:22 PM	Allow me to rewrite this scenario with a host who still has absolute authority, but is no longer a jerk. Host: So what did you bring? Guest: Oh, I brought a mexican dish. Host: Did I not tell you nothing ethnic? I've designed this meal to share my grandmother's favorite dishes which are all european, because she was from Poland. Plus, I'm allergic to jalepeno peppers. Please don't bring any mexican food to my party! Could you come back with something else, and save the mexican food for some other time? Guest: But I really like mexican food, and plenty of our friends do, so I thought - Host: Yeah, I know, but I have a special menu planned for tonight, and if you'll remember we discussed this last week and agreed on the european theme. Maybe if you and the guys really want a mexican feast we can plan one for the future. Guest: Listen up Pal, I want mexican food and I want it now. I'm the guest so you better be nice to me! Plus, I drove Bob here tonight, so if I leave I'm taking him with me and ruining your party HA HA HA! Host: After all the effort I put into this party, I'm offended that you are trying to force me to eat something I'm allergic to. If you really must have mexican tonight, I'm going to have to ask you to eat it elsewhere and leave us in peace. Guest: But I smell nachos in the kitchen! Host: That's right, I know you guys love mexican, so I was going to surprise you with a side dish of nachos to spice up the meal, but since you've seen fit to insult and threaten me, I don't even feel like eating anymore. Don't expect another invitation to attend my dinners. So... not only is he a jerk, he's a hypocrite? I mean, seriously - would you tell a friend that he couldn't attend your dinner, despite bringing food, just because he didn't bring exactly the kind of food that you were expecting? Because that tells me you have very few friends, because being rude will make a person lose them very quickly. Anyway, let's translate that back to D&D: Host: So what did you build? Guest: Oh, I made a Ninja. Host: Did I not tell you nothing ethnic? I've designed this campaign to mimic my favorite books, which are all european. Plus, I don't like the class. Please don't bring any oriental characters to my game! Could you come back with something else, and save the Ninja for some other time? Guest: But I really like the class, and plenty of our friends do, so I thought - Host: Yeah, I know, but I have a special game planned for tonight, and if you'll remember we discussed this last week and agreed on the european theme. Maybe if you and the guys really want an Oriental Adventure, we can plan one for the future. Guest: Look, man, it's just a class. I already have it built, and I don't want to have to sit around for an hour. Plus, I drove Bob here. If I leave, I have to take him with me. Can't you just let it slide? Host: After all the effort I put into this game, I'm offended that you are trying to force me to allow something that doesn't fit. If you really must play a Ninja tonight, I'm going to have to ask you to play it elsewhere and leave us in peace. Guest: But you've got Complete Adventurer right there, and you're letting Bob run a Samurai! Host: That's right, I know you guys love Oriental Adventures, so I was going to surprise you with a chance to go there to spice up the game, but since you've seen fit to point out how much of a hypocrite I am, I don't even feel like DMing anymore. Don't expect another invitation to attend my games. I'm going to go write about this in my LJ, and cry in the dark.
Matthew77 12-07-06, 02:27 PM	This sort of "yes it is" "no it isn't" is not productive, so this will be my final response to Pres_man, but I will be happy to continue the debate with anyone that wants to present their own ideas, instead of just nit-pick other people's posts. :rofl: I thought you said you were going to rewrite where he is NO LONGER a jerk. Instead you have him continue to act like a jerk. Let's see, nobody is forcing him to eat the food that was brought, so nobody is making him eat anything he is algergic to. Also, he broke his own rule by making "ethinic" food. Frankly the guy seems like an ****-retentive idiot. Is that how you run your games? You think that kind of behaviour isn't jerk-like? Seriously? Yeah. If trying my best to accomodate my group's wishes is gonna get me called an ****-retentive idiot by someone because I said "no" to his special pet project, I'm way better off without that player in my game, and so are all my other players. I do, but do you? Why someone feels they must COMMAND others for a leisure activity, I don't understand that. Wow, I love it when people make up words and pretend I said them. Nowhere in this thread have I used the word "Command". I have said the DM has "absolute authority", and makes the "final decision", but neither of those powers amounts to "commanding" someone to play. So now it is a hissy fit? Wow, a player saying they want to use a legitmate class is throwing a hissy fit? How little respect you must have for people who have different views from yours in your games if believe that. Asking once and presenting valid reasons isn't a hissy fit. A hissy fit is continuing to whine and complain and mutter about your self-respect after being told "No". And I would ask, who is more competent of a DM, one who can adjust their game and setting to the ideas and desires of the players or one who is so rigid in their design that anything out of the norm suddenly destroys the whole setting? If my campaign is designed for a group of rogues in a low magic world, then the player that insists on being a Warlock is far beyond "out of the norm", and yes, sometimes the only way to accomodate a request is to destroy the whole setting which I am not willing to do just to pamper a single spoiled player at the expense of everyone else in the game. Just because I could invent some reason for his character to exist, doesn't mean that its the best thing to do. Which will fly for one time, but a DM that consistently does that will quickly lose any self-respecting players. People may put up with being screwed over for a time, but after awhile it gets old. So you define the DM throwing a surprise plot twist as "screwing over the characters" ? I usually define surprise plot twists as "crafting an enjoyable gaming session."
CharlieRock 12-07-06, 02:27 PM	Why? Why should they have to wait. If old Alexander starts acting insane, why shouldn't they step and say, "Dude, chill out. We're here to have fun. Stop taking everything so seriously." Which will fly for one time, but a DM that consistently does that will quickly lose any self-respecting players. People may put up with being screwed over for a time, but after awhile it gets old. Because you can still up-end the DM chair and let Alex bump his fourth point of contact and elect a new DM. Maybe ,even the mere suggestion will help ol'Alex out. That's what I meant by all the slashes between campaign ,session, and ... the third thing I said. Meant, till whenever. Changing the game world is not automatically a screw-job on the players. It should take into account PC action, goals attained, and ... other stuff. (other stuff being, are the players done with those characters and want to make new ones, or just some of the players, or none at all, and they'd need new things to bash). All needs changes. The game world is getting changed whether the players succeed at a goal, or not. If the players did return to claim 1/3 of the kingdom, that is a change in the game world I could make, too. If they don't see any of my notes (and with my handwriting it wouldn't avail them to) they don't know if it is preplanned, or a whim. NEVER let them know the difference ,either. Here is a fundamental question about gaming. Is the game about the PCs with the setting merely being the backdrop that the PCs are currently in, or is the setting the focus with merely the PCs as the eyes the players use to see into it? I dunno, man. Your getting deep there. I would say off hand the players. Since they can radically change the setting. (ahem, after it was made, of course). I don't mind if they build legions and rewrite all the borders on the maps. Or, banzai all my NPCs to the hell of crossed off notes.
Matthew77 12-07-06, 02:32 PM	Guest: But you've got Complete Adventurer right there, and you're letting Bob run a Samurai! Apparently Bob did the right thing by bringing his character concept to the DM ahead of time and asking if it could fit into the campaign somehow, instead of showing up the night of the session with a brand new character that explictly ignores the restrictions provided by the DM, then whining when he was told "no". Also, the irrelevant and gratitious insult at the end of your post goes a long way towards invalidating any useful contributions you might have made to the discussion.
Matthew77 12-07-06, 02:35 PM	Here is a fundamental question about gaming. Is the game about the PCs with the setting merely being the backdrop that the PCs are currently in, or is the setting the focus with merely the PCs as the eyes the players use to see into it? Clearly the focus is the PCs. This is why one person (the DM) can handle all the details of the setting and backdrop, while each PC requires the undivided attention of a player to create the story.
Comus 12-07-06, 02:55 PM	Apparently Bob did the right thing by bringing his character concept to the DM ahead of time and asking if it could fit into the campaign somehow, instead of showing up the night of the session with a brand new character that explictly ignores the restrictions provided by the DM, then whining when he was told "no". Also, the irrelevant and gratitious insult at the end of your post goes a long way towards invalidating any useful contributions you might have made to the discussion. As a hypothetical question, then, what would you do if a player came to your game with: A) A character with a class you are familiar with (and do not think is overpowered) but which is not on your allowed list. Like, say, the Ninja above. All of the other players are ready to go, and it would take him an hour to make anything new. Are you going to let him play the character? The flavor of the class is basically identical to the Rogue, remember, and he doesn't need to be oriental or anything. B) A character which fits your book requirements, but has an extensive backstory - one that contradicts some of what you want to do (like, say, a character who was raised by dragons - in a world where dragons are extraordinarily rare and you want them to remain mysterious). You know full well that the player is a method actor, and will have to make a totally new character if you disallow it, and the backstory is part of the package deal. C) A player that has somehow anticipated - though not through dishonorable means - the main enemies of your campaign, and has built a character extraordinarily well-prepared to defeat them. (Like, say, a Druid.) D) Lastly, there's someone who has designed a character using material from a source that you initially approved, but are now having second thoughts about. The material cannot be removed without, essentially, building an entirely new character. Finally, I'd like to know who I insulted with that post. As far as I can see, it's some fictional DM who does not even represent a real person. Unless, of course, you think I am insulting your viewpoint, which seems to be (correct me if I'm wrong) that DMs shouldn't act as friends, only as commanding officers.
Kursk 12-07-06, 03:11 PM	A) A character with a class you are familiar with (and do not think is overpowered) but which is not on your allowed list. If the player knew it wasn't on the allowed list then he can't play it. B) A character which fits your book requirements, but has an extensive backstory - one that contradicts some of what you want to do (like, say, a character who was raised by dragons - in a world where dragons are extraordinarily rare and you want them to remain mysterious). You know full well that the player is a method actor, and will have to make a totally new character if you disallow it, and the backstory is part of the package deal. Have to change the back story if it is that contradictory or he could keep it but the character would be considered to be delusionary. C) A player that has somehow anticipated - though not through dishonorable means - the main enemies of your campaign, and has built a character extraordinarily well-prepared to defeat them. (Like, say, a Druid.) If it is within boundries I set for character gen then no prob. D) Lastly, there's someone who has designed a character using material from a source that you initially approved, but are now having second thoughts about. The material cannot be removed without, essentially, building an entirely new character. I would allow and have to deal with it as a DM.
Matthew77 12-07-06, 03:39 PM	As a hypothetical question, then, what would you do if a player came to your game with: I'm not going to address your specific examples, instead I will make two points. 1) In all four of these cases, my decision will be heavily influenced by the intent of the player and the means of presentation. A player that mistakenly creates a character concept that won't work in the campaign gets a lot more slack than a player who delibrately ignores clearly explained restrictions. A player who approaches me saying "I know you didn't want to allow this, but here are my reasons, what can we work out" is quite likely to get something very close to what he wants. A player that approaches me saying "This is what I'm playing, deal with it, Screen Monkey." is quite likely to be asked to leave. 2) Regardless of what my actual decision would be, the fact remains that allowing any of these characters into the game is a decision that rests in the sole authority of the DM, not some sort of vote by the rest of the players. In fact, if you look in the front of your PHB where it lays out the steps for character creation, the first step (or at least a very early step, I'm AFB right now) is to discuss the character with the DM. This comes before rolling for stats or picking a race or class, and way before backstory/description, so the only way these problems arise is a lack of DM-Player communication. Finally, I'd like to know who I insulted with that post. As far as I can see, it's some fictional DM who does not even represent a real person. Unless, of course, you think I am insulting your viewpoint, which seems to be (correct me if I'm wrong) that DMs shouldn't act as friends, only as commanding officers. "I'm going to go write about this in my LJ, and cry in the dark." This line did nothing to support your case, and I interpreted it as an insult, as generally attributing negative sterotypes to someone that disagrees with you is considered insulting. Host = DM, and your implication was that anyone who DMed in that manner was the same sort of person that would respond to conflict by crying in the dark. And, your summation is wrong. My viewpoint is, and has been throughout this thread "the DM has the responsibility and authority to make the final decisions about the game setting and mechanics." Nothing about that statement implies the DM and players aren't good friends that work together to make the best game they can.
starfire311 12-07-06, 04:00 PM	It seems to me that there are several roles that must be filled in a game. 1) One is the role of world creator(including the rules of the world) 2) One is the role of controlling the challenges(including RPing NPCs, planning encounters etc.) 3) One is the role of adjudicating rules 4) One is the role of playing a PC. In most games I might say that the DM fills the role of 1, 2 and 3 and the players take care of 4. In my current campaign I took care of 1(except for player backgrounds, I worked with them and allowed them to create large protion of the game world from their background), this was with the consent of the group. I also run any and all house rules past the players and if there are any disagreements we will put it to a vote. I always take care of 2 in all the games I DM, and this is the only role I would say is exclusivly the DMs. In my games we handle 3 as a group, we all know the rules fairly well and if a rules question comes up someone in the group ussually has the answer on hand, if there is a debate and there is no clear RAW, or someone doesnt like how RAW handles it and has a better solution we put it to a vote. the last is one is, IMO exclusivly the realm of the players, although many DMs feel that it is part of their role as well to run a PC.
Comus 12-07-06, 04:29 PM	I'm not going to address your specific examples, instead I will make two points. 1) In all four of these cases, my decision will be heavily influenced by the intent of the player and the means of presentation. A player that mistakenly creates a character concept that won't work in the campaign gets a lot more slack than a player who delibrately ignores clearly explained restrictions. A player who approaches me saying "I know you didn't want to allow this, but here are my reasons, what can we work out" is quite likely to get something very close to what he wants. A player that approaches me saying "This is what I'm playing, deal with it, Screen Monkey." is quite likely to be asked to leave. 2) Regardless of what my actual decision would be, the fact remains that allowing any of these characters into the game is a decision that rests in the sole authority of the DM, not some sort of vote by the rest of the players. In fact, if you look in the front of your PHB where it lays out the steps for character creation, the first step (or at least a very early step, I'm AFB right now) is to discuss the character with the DM. This comes before rolling for stats or picking a race or class, and way before backstory/description, so the only way these problems arise is a lack of DM-Player communication. I never said it should be some kind of vote. The DM certainly has the right to disallow a character, for any reason at all. I've never disputed that. However, the decisions shouldn't reflect favoritism, in any way. Even if one player is a jerk, he should get to use the same books and have the same houserulings as a player who absolutely respects you, and who you absolutely respect. "I'm going to go write about this in my LJ, and cry in the dark." This line did nothing to support your case, and I interpreted it as an insult, as generally attributing negative sterotypes to someone that disagrees with you is considered insulting. Host = DM, and your implication was that anyone who DMed in that manner was the same sort of person that would respond to conflict by crying in the dark. And, your summation is wrong. My viewpoint is, and has been throughout this thread "the DM has the responsibility and authority to make the final decisions about the game setting and mechanics." Nothing about that statement implies the DM and players aren't good friends that work together to make the best game they can. Anyone who tells a player they have to go home because they brought something that doesn't exactly fit into their game - and isn't willing to try and help the player make it fit - will soon find themselves alone. You don't keep a friend by telling them to stay away. My viewpoint can't be wrong, because it's a viewpoint, not a statement of fact. I agree that you're definitely saying that the DM has final authority. However, the tone you're using is very hostile, and leads me to have the viewpoint stated above - that you think DMing is about being a commanding officer first, and a friend second.
Matthew77 12-07-06, 04:47 PM	Did you even read the post you quoted? A player who approaches me saying "I know you didn't want to allow this, but here are my reasons, what can we work out" is quite likely to get something very close to what he wants. I'm curious what thought process brought you from my statement to this: Anyone who tells a player they have to go home because they brought something that doesn't exactly fit into their game - and isn't willing to try and help the player make it fit - will soon find themselves alone. You don't keep a friend by telling them to stay away. If a player is a jerk, and acts like a jerk, and makes demands like a jerk, then you're darn right I don't want to keep that person as a friend. My viewpoint can't be wrong, because it's a viewpoint, not a statement of fact. I agree that you're definitely saying that the DM has final authority. However, the tone you're using is very hostile, and leads me to have the viewpoint stated above - that you think DMing is about being a commanding officer first, and a friend second. Umm.. you told me to correct you if your summation of my viewpoint was wrong, and I corrected you. And finally, just because I'm being hostile to people on this board who persist in attempting to put words into my mouth and don't seem to even bother reading the posts they reply to, doesn't mean I'm hostile towards the people I invite to join my D&D games.
Comus 12-07-06, 05:28 PM	Did you even read the post you quoted? I'm curious what thought process brought you from my statement to this: The Host/DM of the Dinner Party/Game. I didn't re-quote it, but that's what I was referring to. I try and quote only the most recent reply I'm responding to. Umm.. you told me to correct you if your summation of my viewpoint was wrong, and I corrected you. And finally, just because I'm being hostile to people on this board who persist in attempting to put words into my mouth and don't seem to even bother reading the posts they reply to, doesn't mean I'm hostile towards the people I invite to join my D&D games. I'm not trying to put words in your mouth - and I apologize if it seems that I am. The simple truth is that I'm seeing you being very hostile towards people, and there's no evidence presented in another direction. Perhaps I should just try something more simple, and just state my views, rather than critiquing yours? I believe in being even-handed. If one player asks to play a goblin, say, and I allow it, then I have to allow the other players to make goblins if they want to. If I tell someone they can't play a Frenzied Berzerker, then I won't allow anyone to play one, even if they've got a good argument as to why I should allow it. I also don't disallow anything without good reason, and it has to be a reason I can provide at a moment's notice. If I say that oriental characters don't fit the game, then the players won't fight any, either. This even goes to monsters and alignment - if they want to suck up the LA, or be a target for the forces of Good, that's fine.
Matthew77 12-07-06, 05:38 PM	I believe in being even-handed. If one player asks to play a goblin, say, and I allow it, then I have to allow the other players to make goblins if they want to. If I tell someone they can't play a Frenzied Berzerker, then I won't allow anyone to play one, even if they've got a good argument as to why I should allow it. I also don't disallow anything without good reason, and it has to be a reason I can provide at a moment's notice. If I say that oriental characters don't fit the game, then the players won't fight any, either. This even goes to monsters and alignment - if they want to suck up the LA, or be a target for the forces of Good, that's fine. Fair enough. The question I'd ask then is what happens when player(s) dispute your decision. Lets say you have a good reason for disallowing a prestige class, and in the middle of the campaign a player suddenly announces that he's taking his next level in exactly that prestige class. All the other players start chiming in "yeah, let him play it, that's a dumb reason for disallowing it anyway." Who has the final authority to make the decision, the DM or the collective will of the players?
Comus 12-07-06, 06:34 PM	Fair enough. The question I'd ask then is what happens when player(s) dispute your decision. Lets say you have a good reason for disallowing a prestige class, and in the middle of the campaign a player suddenly announces that he's taking his next level in exactly that prestige class. All the other players start chiming in "yeah, let him play it, that's a dumb reason for disallowing it anyway." Who has the final authority to make the decision, the DM or the collective will of the players? To be honest, it's never come up. My group generally doesn't get into arguments like this. However, if it did, I'd probably want to hear their reasons for why it should be allowed. If they've got a better argument than I do, than I'd be tempted to allow it. However, they'd be working uphill, because I'd already stated that I wasn't going to use that.
pres_man 12-07-06, 07:43 PM	Clearly the focus is the PCs. This is why one person (the DM) can handle all the details of the setting and backdrop, while each PC requires the undivided attention of a player to create the story. If this is the case, then isn't the loss of the PCs a bigger effect then the change of the setting? And no games don't end merely because a character dies, but they do change, they hopefully evolve. A party that was looking for a Holy Avenger for the paladin may suddenly stop that quest if the paladin dies, correct? On the other hand, if they are looking for a Holy Avenger in Greyhawk, and are suddenly "teleported" to Eberron, might they still be interested in finding the Holy Avenger? The background has changed but the group dynamic perhaps has not (or it might). If a player is a jerk, and acts like a jerk, and makes demands like a jerk, then you're darn right I don't want to keep that person as a friend. The problem I see with that, is you seem to be judging things on a totally subjective level (whether you are or not I can't be sure). If they are nice and "political" to you, then you will give in, but if they aren't, if they rub you the wrong way, then screw them. DMs that practice such a subjective stance often fall into other traps of favorable treatment for certainly players (Oh, look another item for the party rogue, isn't that convenient.) Lets say you have a good reason for disallowing a prestige class, and in the middle of the campaign a player suddenly announces that he's taking his next level in exactly that prestige class. All the other players start chiming in "yeah, let him play it, that's a dumb reason for disallowing it anyway." Well if all of the other players are ok with him taking it, then perhaps my reasoning is dumb. If everybody says I'm wrong, perhaps I should actually consider the possibility that I am wrong. My personal point of view is give people enough rope to hang themselves. If everybody is ok with a FB in the party, great, the first time he kills a party member, I'll just shrug my shoulders and say, "That is why I didn't want them in the game." Who has the final authority to make the decision, the DM or the collective will of the players? Frankly, the players majority. A DM that gets on the wrong side of all of the players, is quickly going to be in a very uncomfortable game. Every decision is going to be second guessed, sacastic comments are going to fill the air, a general feeling of uneasiness will be felt by all. The reason why most DMs don't get this is because most players don't give a flip about most of the issues that DMs spend their nights thinking about. Do you think my players worry about whether a hydra gets to use all of its heads for an AoO, or only one? No, unless I ask them their opinion, even then they only think about it for a few moments (unless they are also a DM). But I think about it, not because I have more "right" to answer the question, but because I am more concerned with the answer than they are.
pres_man 12-07-06, 07:49 PM	Changing the game world is not automatically a screw-job on the players. It should take into account PC action, goals attained, and ... other stuff. (other stuff being, are the players done with those characters and want to make new ones, or just some of the players, or none at all, and they'd need new things to bash). All needs changes. The game world is getting changed whether the players succeed at a goal, or not. If the players did return to claim 1/3 of the kingdom, that is a change in the game world I could make, too. If they don't see any of my notes (and with my handwriting it wouldn't avail them to) they don't know if it is preplanned, or a whim. NEVER let them know the difference ,either. I think we misunderstood each other on that one. I was under the assumption that the players were told their characters would get a specific reward for doing a task (1/3 of the kingdom or something). The DM then decides, nope, not going to give them that, and stiffs the PCs. Well players will probably put up with such a thing once, but if a DM does that kind of thing often, the players are going to soon start saying things like, "Yeah right, we do this and you'll give us something, b.s., you'll stiff us again. We'll do what we want, and this kingdom can go to the Abyssal planes for all I care."
archcomponent 12-07-06, 08:42 PM	Allow me to rewrite this scenario with a host who still has absolute authority, but is no longer a jerk. Host: So what did you bring? Guest: Oh, I brought a mexican dish. Host: Did I not tell you nothing ethnic? I've designed this meal to share my grandmother's favorite dishes which are all european, because she was from Poland. Plus, I'm allergic to jalepeno peppers. Please don't bring any mexican food to my party! Could you come back with something else, and save the mexican food for some other time? Guest: But I really like mexican food, and plenty of our friends do, so I thought - Host: Yeah, I know, but I have a special menu planned for tonight, and if you'll remember we discussed this last week and agreed on the european theme. Maybe if you and the guys really want a mexican feast we can plan one for the future. Guest: Listen up Pal, I want mexican food and I want it now. I'm the guest so you better be nice to me! Plus, I drove Bob here tonight, so if I leave I'm taking him with me and ruining your party HA HA HA! Host: After all the effort I put into this party, I'm offended that you are trying to force me to eat something I'm allergic to. If you really must have mexican tonight, I'm going to have to ask you to eat it elsewhere and leave us in peace. Guest: But I smell nachos in the kitchen! Host: That's right, I know you guys love mexican, so I was going to surprise you with a side dish of nachos to spice up the meal, but since you've seen fit to insult and threaten me, I don't even feel like eating anymore. Don't expect another invitation to attend my dinners. That is your example of a DM not acting like an ass? I do not know if I should take that as hilarious or incredibly sad. Are you sure that you did not want this 'non-jerk' host to begin cackling maniacally and announce, "As my guests, you have subjudgated yourselves to my very whim!"
Magnus_the_Mad 12-07-06, 08:45 PM	There's a problem here, which is that everybody repeats the same tired old BS that's been the standard way to write about GMing for 30 years and nobody ever notices that that's not the way they actually play. So what you are saying is that what's worked for the past thirty years is all wrong and none of us play the way the books have laid it out all along? Maybe in your games, but not mine or any other DM I've played with over the last 15 years. I don't see a problem, just a great game that works as advertised. Everybody talks about GMing in this stilted, nonsensical, unreal way. That's what we're used to from the books. From old D&D and from West End Star Wars and from Vampire (oh, dysfunctional Vampire!) and from D&D3e and from pretty much every mainstream RPG book. They all have that section and it's always the same. The GM is god. The GM is master of the world. The GM writes the story. The GM does all the work but gets to have all the fun. Blah blah. But that's not how people actually play. Maybe it's time to stop pretending? You play it your way, I'll play it the fun way. The way it has been for the past thirty years. The way that works and works well.
Matthew77 12-07-06, 08:54 PM	That is your example of a DM not acting like an ass? I do not know if I should take that as hilarious or incredibly sad. Specific citations on what behavior/language my example Host used that offends you is much more helpful than blanket assertions. Without more information, I can only assume that your definition of "ass" is "anyone that doesn't immediately bend over backwards to accomodate my personal requests, even though I am only one of the five players he's trying to satisify."
Matthew77 12-07-06, 08:56 PM	To be honest, it's never come up. My group generally doesn't get into arguments like this. However, if it did, I'd probably want to hear their reasons for why it should be allowed. If they've got a better argument than I do, than I'd be tempted to allow it. However, they'd be working uphill, because I'd already stated that I wasn't going to use that. Lots of qualifers in that statement. However, by using phrases such as "I would probably" and "I'd be tempted" you concede the point that the DM has the final authority, otherwise the players wouldn't even need to be presenting arguments to you, they'd just make the ruling themselves.
Magnus_the_Mad 12-07-06, 09:03 PM	Fair enough. The question I'd ask then is what happens when player(s) dispute your decision. Lets say you have a good reason for disallowing a prestige class, and in the middle of the campaign a player suddenly announces that he's taking his next level in exactly that prestige class. All the other players start chiming in "yeah, let him play it, that's a dumb reason for disallowing it anyway." Who has the final authority to make the decision, the DM or the collective will of the players? Honestly, it would depend on their reasons for why they disagree with the DM. If they can come up with a good reason or two then I just might change my mind. If they just sit there and say "well, because we want it" without any thought beyond that then they will be S.O.L. What I find really funny about those that seem to disagree with the DM having final authority is that they use very extreme words of a finite nature. DEMAND, CONTROL, GOD, EGOTISTICAL, JERK, etc. My question to you guys is who the heck did you play with that burned you so badly? If you honestly played with DMs who were like this then it's good that you don't anymore but I think you have some bad issues still brewing in the back of your collective heads from those games. Just because the DM has final authority does not mean that they are jerks or *******s. If they are a good DM, one who arbitrates fairly and respects their friends and never abuses the trust factor their role has with the players, then they can have that final authority while running very exciting and fun games for the group. Why do you have to equate authority with evil, bad, god complex, jerk wad, monkey lovers (no offense to the monkeys out there)? Benevolent leaders have authority so why can't the DM?
pres_man 12-07-06, 09:16 PM	Well I would question why some claim that a DM that tries his best to reasonable meet the expectations of his players is a "push-over" or has "low self-esteem"? Why are players that make demands about a hobbie they participate in for hours out of week, and spend money on, considered "whinners"? If a DM is a leader, then they should lead. Bad leaders rely on their "authority" to lead. Good leaders convince others to want to follow them. Likewise a bad DM will ban something and claim it is his right to as the DM. A good DM will discuss why something might not be in the best interest in the group and find a middle ground to work with the player on it. The bad DM does not inspire loyalty and will find the players turn on him and/or abandoning him at the first sign of a more competent DM, a good DM has problems keeping the number of players small as word of mouth spreads.
Comus 12-07-06, 09:22 PM	Lots of qualifers in that statement. However, by using phrases such as "I would probably" and "I'd be tempted" you concede the point that the DM has the final authority, otherwise the players wouldn't even need to be presenting arguments to you, they'd just make the ruling themselves. Of course I concede the point. The DM has final authority over the game, because he runs it. There's no way to dispute that. But the DMs power comes from the players - he doesn't have any power unless they give it to him. Thus, it behooves everyone to cooperate. Simply put, D&D isn't a true democracy. It's also not a dictatorship. It's a representative democracy - the DM is given power, and is expected to use that power for the benefit of the players, though he does have control over how the power is used. ...My question to you guys is who the heck did you play with that burned you so badly?... You know, I can actually point to the exact DM that did this. Game lasted all of three sessions, and ended in the usual way bad games end - with the Deck of Many Things. He was tolerable as a player, until he started to think he had power and we corrected him. After that, I've never seen him again, and been thankful for it. To give you an idea of what it was like, he meant it when he said "The DM is God." He tailored, on the fly, challenges to players - if you were immune to poison, you'd never encounter it. Traps and riddles tended to be one and the same, and ended with "guess what the DM is thinking or die." He wasn't the worst DM I ever had. Just the one with the biggest god-complex. I don't talk about the worst DM I had unless pressed, because it's a long story.
Matthew77 12-07-06, 09:24 PM	Isn't the loss of the PCs a bigger effect then the change of the setting? And no games don't end merely because a character dies, but they do change, they hopefully evolve. A party that was looking for a Holy Avenger for the paladin may suddenly stop that quest if the paladin dies, correct? On the other hand, if they are looking for a Holy Avenger in Greyhawk, and are suddenly "teleported" to Eberron, might they still be interested in finding the Holy Avenger? The background has changed but the group dynamic perhaps has not (or it might). I think we need to first draw a distinction between an in-game setting change (DM stays the same, but the characters transfer between settings through some dimension shifting) and an out-of-game setting change (DM A falls into a coma, so DM B takes over.) In the second case, I believe there is a fundamental paradigm shift, because now you're dealing with a new set of rules, and someone with their own ideas about how the game world would proceed. But, that pre-supposes a "Strong DM" model, such as the one I advocate, rather than the suggested "Player Input" model. I suppose a "Player Input" campaign would find it easier to adjust to the loss of any specific member, even if that member was the majority contributor to the setting. However, I'm not convinced the "Player Input" model really works. If each person has equal input into the creation of the setting (which I can see working), someone still has to devise the obstacles the party faces, and I just can't envision an enjoyable game where those obstacles are created jointly, without one person who has knowledge that isn't shared with the entire group. If that's the case, then losing that person (ie, the DM) and his knowledge means the campaign will change enough to be considered a different game. Before someone mis-interpets me again, "knowledge" as I'm using it here refers to such things as "What is the BBEG's ultimate goal" and "What was the meaning of that strange occurance three sessions ago that the characters never figured out". If all these things are known to all players, I don't really see the point in the game, unless its an acting exercise or psychological exploration technique.
archcomponent 12-07-06, 09:25 PM	Without more information, I can only assume that your definition of "ass" is "anyone that doesn't immediately bend over backwards to accomodate my personal requests, even though I am only one of the five players he's trying to satisify." Wow. So you are saying that without someone pointing out or proving to you that there is something specifically wrong with the behavior of the host in your example, you cannot see anything wrong with all that he said? That he is an example of a good DM, and that if he acted otherwise he would be a pathic wishy-washy pushover? Wait - I think that bears specific examination. This is not an argumentation tactic? You honestly cannot see or fathom an objection to the host's behavior in your example other than a player wanting to make his DM 'bend over' for their satisfaction? Though I do think it is cute that in order to make your rewrite with the host looking like less of a jerk you found it necessary to try to make the guest look like more of a jerk.
Magnus_the_Mad 12-07-06, 09:30 PM	Well I would question why some claim that a DM that tries his best to reasonable meet the expectations of his players is a "push-over" or has "low self-esteem"? Why are players that make demands about a hobbie they participate in for hours out of week, and spend money on, considered "whinners"? So a DM who spends a portion of their budget and puts more into the game all week than the players (game planning) should just let the players get their way all the time? I don't think so. Leave money out of this, we all spend it to play so the players are not more burdended by this part of D&D than the DM. No one said that a DM who works with their group is a push-over or has no self esteem. Not sure where you are getting that from. Furthermore, making consistent demands makes you a whiner and a jerk, not a one time offense at a demand. If a DM is a leader, then they should lead. Bad leaders rely on their "authority" to lead. Good leaders convince others to want to follow them. A good leader should use their authority, not abuse it. There is a difference here. Likewise a bad DM will ban something and claim it is his right to as the DM. A good DM will discuss why something might not be in the best interest in the group and find a middle ground to work with the player on it. The bad DM does not inspire loyalty and will find the players turn on him and/or abandoning him at the first sign of a more competent DM, a good DM has problems keeping the number of players small as word of mouth spreads. Ok, banning material is NOT an indication of a bad DM. This statement is far from truth. As for the rest I agree. Relying on your authority is definately a bad thing, but using it to provide a great game is not a bad thing. I think you have misunderstood my previous post. Authority is not a negative word but it seems a few have made it that way during the course of this thread. You can have and use authority for good purposes.
Matthew77 12-07-06, 09:31 PM	The DM has final authority over the game, because he runs it. There's no way to dispute that. Quoted because this is the point I've been arguing for the last nine pages. But the DMs power comes from the players - he doesn't have any power unless they give it to him. Thus, it behooves everyone to cooperate. Granted. But once they give him that power, he's neither a jerk, a god, a poor host, an egotistical maniac, nor a friendless soul crying alone in the dark if he chooses to exercise it.
Magnus_the_Mad 12-07-06, 09:34 PM	You know, I can actually point to the exact DM that did this. Game lasted all of three sessions, and ended in the usual way bad games end - with the Deck of Many Things. He was tolerable as a player, until he started to think he had power and we corrected him. After that, I've never seen him again, and been thankful for it. To give you an idea of what it was like, he meant it when he said "The DM is God." He tailored, on the fly, challenges to players - if you were immune to poison, you'd never encounter it. Traps and riddles tended to be one and the same, and ended with "guess what the DM is thinking or die." He wasn't the worst DM I ever had. Just the one with the biggest god-complex. I don't talk about the worst DM I had unless pressed, because it's a long story. And that is a fine example of a DM abusing their authority. That sucks man, I personally have had a run in with a Deck of Many Things one time and my players who are with me now have requested to never encounter it. I have happily obliged them :)
Matthew77 12-07-06, 09:36 PM	Wow. So you are saying that without someone pointing out or proving to you that there is something specifically wrong with the behavior of the host in your example, you cannot see anything wrong with all that he said? You honestly cannot see or fathom an objection to the host's behavior in your example other than a player wanting to make his DM 'bend over' for their satisfaction? Yes. Please point out exactly what behavior you are objecting too. My host was calm, reasonable and polite. He presented his reasons for his decision, and offered alternatives to those that didn't agree. He wasn't insulting, never simply dismissed his guest's concerns for no reason. The only specific thing that you seem to be objecting to is the fact that he said "No." If you have any desire for a real discussion, and aren't just insulting my integrity and perceptiveness, please indicate exactly which of my "Host's" behaviours you find offensive and why.
Matthew77 12-07-06, 09:38 PM	I personally have had a run in with a Deck of Many Things one time and my players who are with me now have requested to never encounter it. I have happily obliged them :) You know.. just because you find one doesn't mean you have to draw from it. You can always just chuck it down a well or something.
Comus 12-07-06, 09:45 PM	Granted. But once they give him that power, he's neither a jerk, a god, a poor host, an egotistical maniac, nor a friendless soul crying alone in the dark if he chooses to exercise it. This is where I disagree with you. You can give a person power, but just because you chose to give it to them, it doesn't mean they won't abuse it. If they abuse the power, they can be a jerk, a god, a poor host, or an egotistical maniac. Doing that can quickly lead to being a friendless soul crying alone in the dark. It's why elections generally aren't for life - to give people an opportunity to correct mistakes by taking power away and giving it to another. Of course, if he is exercising the power in the way he should, to make the game more enjoyable for all (or at least for a majority), then the system has worked, and all is right in the world. You know.. just because you find one doesn't mean you have to draw from it. You can always just chuck it down a well or something. Chucking it down a well is about #3 in my list of ways to use the Deck. Number one involves divination spells. Number two involves setting up a fortune-telling stall and getting other people to draw for you... and then taking the stuff they get.
CharlieRock 12-07-06, 09:47 PM	I think we misunderstood each other on that one. I was under the assumption that the players were told their characters would get a specific reward for doing a task (1/3 of the kingdom or something). The DM then decides, nope, not going to give them that, and stiffs the PCs. Well players will probably put up with such a thing once, but if a DM does that kind of thing often, the players are going to soon start saying things like, "Yeah right, we do this and you'll give us something, b.s., you'll stiff us again. We'll do what we want, and this kingdom can go to the Abyssal planes for all I care." Well, I had that one coming for the example I used ;) However, it occured to me that someone who, already due 1/3 of the kingdom and saving it again, finding the realm without ruler and without rival (after the evil wizard is taken out) ... could easily make the jump to claiming the other 2/3. Depending on the cooperation of the aforementioned fair princess. :king: (usually when I stiff the players, it is because I upped the stakes. For the very reason you gave I don't do that often, though).
Magnus_the_Mad 12-07-06, 09:48 PM	You know.. just because you find one doesn't mean you have to draw from it. You can always just chuck it down a well or something. True enough. But then why put it there to begin with if that is what you know your players will do? Sure you can build a great campaign around this artifact, but that's a different topic. My experience was back in second edition and it was the first time I had encountered the item so I was not aware of what it was capable of.
Matthew77 12-07-06, 09:48 PM	In fact, since two people already have found my "Host" to be a jerk, let me break down his statements and see if you can find something specific to object to. Host: So what did you bring? Guest: Oh, I brought a mexican dish. Host: Did I not tell you nothing ethnic? (checking for possiblity of miscommunication) I've designed this meal to share my grandmother's favorite dishes which are all european, because she was from Poland. (giving reason for decision) Plus, I'm allergic to jalepeno peppers. (giving second reason for decision) Please don't bring any mexican food to my party! (polite request) Could you come back with something else, and save the mexican food for some other time? (offering alternatives) Guest: But I really like mexican food, and plenty of our friends do, so I thought - Host: Yeah, I know, (sympathy for complaint) but I have a special menu planned for tonight, (giving a reason for decision) and if you'll remember we discussed this last week and agreed on the european theme. (giving another reason for decision) Maybe if you and the guys really want a mexican feast we can plan one for the future. (offering alternatives) Guest: Listen up Pal, I want mexican food and I want it now. I'm the guest so you better be nice to me! Plus, I drove Bob here tonight, so if I leave I'm taking him with me and ruining your party HA HA HA! (throwing a hissy fit) Host: After all the effort I put into this party, I'm offended that you are trying to force me to eat something I'm allergic to. (calm statement of emotions) If you really must have mexican tonight, I'm going to have to ask you to eat it elsewhere and leave us in peace. (polite repetition of decision. no escalation of conflict in response to hissy fit) Guest: But I smell nachos in the kitchen! Host: That's right, I know you guys love mexican, so I was going to surprise you with a side dish of nachos to spice up the meal, (calm , non-defensive explanation of decision) but since you've seen fit to insult and threaten me, (statement of emotions) I don't even feel like eating anymore. Don't expect another invitation to attend my dinners. (suggested resolution to the conflict) Now, if you really think the Host in this example is being a jerk, please indicate which of my characterizations of his behavior you find inaccurate.
Comus 12-07-06, 10:01 PM	Now, if you really think the Host in this example is being a jerk, please indicate which of my characterizations of his behavior you find inaccurate. This one. Host: That's right, I know you guys love mexican, so I was going to surprise you with a side dish of nachos to spice up the meal, (calm , non-defensive explanation of decision) but since you've seen fit to insult and threaten me, (statement of emotions) I don't even feel like eating anymore. Don't expect another invitation to attend my dinners. (suggested resolution to the conflict) I see it more like... Host: That's right, I know you guys love mexican, so I was going to surprise you with a side dish of nachos to spice up the meal, (hypocracy - he was going to serve mexican anyway) but since you've seen fit to insult and threaten me, (statement of emotions [no contest]) I don't even feel like eating anymore.(hissy fit) Don't expect another invitation to attend my dinners. (hits player with ban-hammer rather than trying to resolve the situation) Do you see my point of view on this? Granted, the player in your example is also taken to an extreme. I mean, he goes from... Guest: But I really like mexican food, and plenty of our friends do, so I thought - to Guest: Listen up Pal, I want mexican food and I want it now. I'm the guest so you better be nice to me! Plus, I drove Bob here tonight, so if I leave I'm taking him with me and ruining your party HA HA HA! with nothing between. It's because of this anti-player view that I added in the last line in my counter example, the one you found insulting. I saw it as saying "if a player requests anything from the DM, he is trying to control the game and be a jerk."
a_psh 12-07-06, 10:06 PM	D&D is all one giant shell game, really.A shell game as in an exercise in illusionism? A one-man show? The pretense that you're contributing something to the game when you're not? Why play anything that way at all? ... So what you are saying is that what's worked for the past thirty years is all wrong and none of us play the way the books have laid it out all along?Yes! And that's because the books don't say anything. They leave this big blank void where all the social aspects of the game are. And, if you look at the social contracts that people build implicitly because that's the only way they know how to approach it, they don't mirror the explicit structure that the books claim to provide at all. People look at the structure they do provide and try to extrapolate it up to the social level, but that doesn't work. Nothing happens when you do that. So you're stuck with a bunch of people repeating the same tired old lines and pretending that they mean something they don't. Pretending that their play actually works one way when it either works a completely different way or doesn't work at all. It's all bull. "Shared story" my ass! If you follow the procedures in the books and nothing else, you're not creating a shared story. You're playing through one guy's pre-preped stuff. That's the thing. Preparing the wrong thing destroys play. Prejudging or just friggin' judging at all destroys play. It siphons the meaning out of the "story" you create until you really are just stuck with a ramble jumble of events. The RPG becomes an activity devoid of any social utility. Suddenly, you're no longer getting to know each other better through what you do at the table, you're just rolling a few dice and making a few jokes and going home none the wiser. Everyone who said "the GM creates the plot": you don't get it. Simple as that. Whatever "story" you do create is devoid of life and meaning. Which works out well enough if nobody cares about it in the first place, but is downright terrible self-delusion otherwise.
Always-Late 12-07-06, 10:08 PM	Everyone who said "the GM creates the plot": you don't get it. Simple as that. Whatever "story" you do create is devoid of life and meaning. Which works out well enough if nobody cares about it in the first place, but is downright terrible self-delusion otherwise.So why do you play D&D if the whole thing is pointless?
Magnus_the_Mad 12-07-06, 10:10 PM	Everyone who said "the GM creates the plot": you don't get it. Simple as that. Whatever "story" you do create is devoid of life and meaning. Which works out well enough if nobody cares about it in the first place, but is downright terrible self-delusion otherwise. :rolleyes: There you go with you finite BS opinion again. You really need to relax dude. Telling others who have played this game that they "don't get it" because you disagree with what millions of players and DMs have been doing for a long time is totally retarded. Ease up. Just because you think so doesn't make it so.
Matthew77 12-07-06, 10:15 PM	Host: That's right, I know you guys love mexican, so I was going to surprise you with a side dish of nachos to spice up the meal, (hypocracy - he was going to serve mexican anyway) but since you've seen fit to insult and threaten me, (statement of emotions [no contest]) I don't even feel like eating anymore.(hissy fit) Don't expect another invitation to attend my dinners. (hits player with ban-hammer rather than trying to resolve the situation) Do you see my point of view on this? Granted, the player in your example is also taken to an extreme. Yes, I see your point of view, and thank you for not just repeating "if you don't see this my way you must be blind" like some previous posters have. The mexican food already there I'll grant you. I only left it because I wanted to change as little as possible from the original scenario. As for the last two sentences, the "Host" has already twice offered alternative solutions, and has indicated that the "Guest" was already involved in the planning of the party when they discussed it last week. He's also had someone declare their intentions to ruin his evening if they don't get their way. I think he's entitled to express some frustration by this point. As for the ban hammer, if the two are already friends, I would hope that Host gives Guest another chance to show that he can be productive instead of disruptive, but at least getting him out of the room lets Host return to the other four guests who are anxiously waiting to dig into the tasty meal.
a_psh 12-07-06, 10:24 PM	In fact, since two people already have found my "Host" to be a jerk, let me break down his statements and see if you can find something specific to object to.Sure. Your post follows, with comments in blue: --------- Host: So what did you bring? Guest: Oh, I brought a mexican dish. Host: Did I not tell you nothing ethnic? (checking for possiblity of miscommunication) (irritation - the way you phrase it makes it sound like he's puffing up like a penguin) I've designed this meal to share my grandmother's favorite dishes which are all european, because she was from Poland. (giving reason for decision) Plus, I'm allergic to jalepeno peppers. (giving second reason for decision) Please don't bring any mexican food to my party! (polite request) (an exclamatory tone indicates passive-aggressive politeness) Could you come back with something else, and save the mexican food for some other time? (offering alternatives) (here he's already decided what to do, and what to do won't change) Guest: But I really like mexican food, and plenty of our friends do, so I thought - Host: Yeah, I know, (sympathy for complaint) but I have a special menu planned for tonight, (giving a reason for decision) and if you'll remember we discussed this last week and agreed on the european theme. (giving another reason for decision) Maybe if you and the guys really want a mexican feast we can plan one for the future. (offering alternatives) Guest: Listen up Pal, I want mexican food and I want it now. I'm the guest so you better be nice to me! Plus, I drove Bob here tonight, so if I leave I'm taking him with me and ruining your party HA HA HA! (throwing a hissy fit) Host: After all the effort I put into this party, I'm offended that you are trying to force me to eat something I'm allergic to. (calm statement of emotions) (this supposition is an escalation) If you really must have mexican tonight, I'm going to have to ask you to eat it elsewhere and leave us in peace. (polite repetition of decision. no escalation of conflict in response to hissy fit) ("polite repetition" of a unilateral, unchangable decision -- we call this an ultimatum; this is where the argument completely derails and becomes a bid for social dominance, and this is started unilaterally by the Host) Guest: But I smell nachos in the kitchen! Host: That's right, I know you guys love mexican, so I was going to surprise you with a side dish of nachos to spice up the meal, (calm , non-defensive explanation of decision) (arbitrary decisionmaking, indicative of being a control freak) but since you've seen fit to insult and threaten me, (statement of emotions) I don't even feel like eating anymore (escalation through appeal to emotional distress). Don't expect another invitation to attend my dinners. (suggested resolution to the conflict) (MAJOR escalation) --------- Is the Guest being a douche? Yup. What's the Host doing, though? Well, from the moment he's opened his mouth, he's made a decision. This conflict is about having it his way. He will make the other person see things his way. Mexican food tonight? Over his dead body. And he's escalating, big time. He starts off in a very rigid stance and follows by first blowing up the friend's bringing of food into a massive imposition (that he has to eat it) and immediately follows with a powerful ultimatum -- "Either the food or your friends." And not just "food or me". Everyone. He's set himself up as the voice of the entire group, making an ultimatum on everyone's behalf. This is where it stops being about two irritated people talking to each other and becomes one guy trying to force something out of the other. It's now full-on social combat. Then he springs something rather nasty: there are already nachos in the kitchen. This reveals that the actual issue of conflict is irrelevant to him. All he cares about is your social submission. He'll let you have Mexican food -- but only on his terms. What kind of a jerk does that? And what kind of a jerk then immediately follows that with another massive escalation, turning it into "Submit to me now or you're out for life"? The Guest wanted his Mexican dish and was pushy about it. The Host escalated the conflict into a friendship-breaker and changed the goalposts so it was no longer between the two of them, but between the Guest and the entire group. I don't care if he throws the world's coolest dinner parties, he's still being an absolutely terrible friend.
Matthew77 12-07-06, 10:25 PM	The RPG becomes an activity devoid of any social utility. Suddenly, you're no longer getting to know each other better through what you do at the table, you're just rolling a few dice and making a few jokes and going home none the wiser. Social utility? I'm enjoying a leisure time activity, not trying to improve the destiny of mankind or raise the standard of living. Give me a relaxing evening of rolling a few dice and making a few jokes any day :) Everyone who said "the GM creates the plot": you don't get it. Simple as that. Whatever "story" you do create is devoid of life and meaning. plot –noun 1. a secret plan or scheme to accomplish some purpose, esp. a hostile, unlawful, or evil purpose: a plot to overthrow the government. 2. Also called storyline. the plan, scheme, or main story of a literary or dramatic work, as a play, novel, or short story. In order to create a storyline one needs conflict. Set-up and resolution of conflict requires both an actor and a reactor. If the PCs have goals and ambitions, they can serve as the actor. The DM must then provide the reaction that their actions provoke. This creates a conflict, which drives the plot. If the PCs just sit around and wait for something to happen, the DM must provide an actor or action, to which the PCs can then react, creating a conflict, which drives the plot. The only "plot" that can be created without the input of the DM is intra-party conflict. Please explain how a plot can come into being without a DM creating it. (this could be either a "strong DM" model or a "consensus DM" model.)
Always-Late 12-07-06, 10:35 PM	Guest: Listen up Pal, I want mexican food and I want it now. I'm the guest so you better be nice to me! Plus, I drove Bob here tonight, so if I leave I'm taking him with me and ruining your party HA HA HA!Okay, this guest is a asshat. I don't even see how the conversation can continue after this. Guest: Listen up Pal (condescending), I want mexican food (we know that) and I want it now.(demanding crap from the host) I'm the guest so you better be nice to me! (being a general asshat) Plus, I drove Bob here tonight, so if I leave I'm taking him with me and ruining your party (petty vindictiveness?) HA HA HA! (being a total douche.) Really, at this point the host would be justified in forcibly removing him from his property. [[EDIT]] Why even bother with the ultimatum? Just throw him out (possibly taking Bob with him) and just don't invite him ever again.
Matthew77 12-07-06, 10:37 PM	Sure. Your post follows, with comments in blue: A_psh, you make some very good comments about the host's behavior, that made me rethink the "correctness" of his position. I would like to point out two things. First, interpretation of what is a "polite request" and what is a "major escalation" depends on tone and body language that is not specified by the scenario. Second, the Host has stated that the decision was made last week, and has indicated that all the guests had the opportunity for input then. If anyone is Passive-aggressive here, it is Guest for agreeing last week and then disgregarding that agreement this week. Thank you for taking the time to post valid comments. I still think Host is correct in not yielding on Guest's request, but I'll agree that he could have been more accomodating without ruining the party for everyone. (ideally without ruining it for anyone, including himself) After a scene like that, I doubt anyone would be able to cheerfully sit down and have a good time.
archcomponent 12-07-06, 10:39 PM	Okay, this guest is a asshat. You see, that is the secret switch right there. In order to make the host look like less of a jerk this was inserted into the guests dialogue rather than just having the host respond differently. You could also add: Guest: I ALSO MURDERED YOUR PUPPY - SO WHO IS HAVING THE MEXICAN FOOD NOW? NOT FLUFFY! And possibly then put the host up for sainthood and the guest on death row. Instead of having the host dealing with the same guest, we have secretly replaced him not with Foldger's crystals, but with someone who actually says 'HA HA' to make the host look like a bit less of a total ass. Before that edit, the strongest thing the guest said was: Guest: What exactly is your problem? Besides, this 'previous agreement' stuff is being added as a backdoor strengthener. It has been made clear that the 'strong DM' rules over his game, changing things at a whim.
pres_man 12-07-06, 10:46 PM	I have to agree with a_psh assessment of the dinner party. I still fail to see how the guy bringing extra food is going to upset the party. So the host is allegeric to some of the ingrediates, so don't eat it, he has all of those other wonderful dishes to eat. Perhaps the guest finds those other dishes disgusting, yet still wants to have a good time with their friends. Should he have to force down food he finds disgusting, merely to get to socialize? If he doesn't find the hosts food appetizing, bringing his own is often a very mature thing to do. Many of the people I game with have "weird" (not to them, to me though) eating habits. Some can't eat wheat, some refuse to eat carbohydrates, etc. And whenever they make food, I find it ... well not very appetizing. So I either eat before I come over or bring my own food. They do the same at my home. Frankly I can't even understand the mentality needed to be the host in that situation. "You dare bring food to my house!"
a_psh 12-07-06, 10:49 PM	Second, the Host has stated that the decision was made last week, and has indicated that all the guests had the opportunity for input then.Then you're not showing us the scene that mattered. Everything in that conflict was pre-defined last week and nothing they do this week means anything, other than as a test of each other's boundaries. In other words, both the Host and Guest are there to have a confrontation about social power and nothing else.
Matthew77 12-07-06, 10:51 PM	Before that edit, the strongest thing the guest said was: Guest: What exactly is your problem? Obviously, the best thing would be for the guest to make a counterprosal, such as "oh, I totally forgot about the european thing. How about if I just eat my mexican food myself without forcing it on all the rest of you?" Unfortunately, unlike a dinner party, a D&D game can't really have different dishes for each participant. This is why a DM needs to have greater authority over game mechanics than a Host needs to have over his dinner menu.
deadDMwalking 12-07-06, 10:53 PM	I have a few points to make. However, since they'll be well thought out and articulate, I don't expect anyone to read them. The example with the dinner party does offer some insights into the DM-Player relationship. It is not a perfect analogy. Trying to attack the analogy does nothing to further the discussion about the role of the DM or that of the Players. While it is obvious people enjoy making fun of each other and attacking the other position, the mark of a quality community would instead be to treat each other with respect while we disagree with each others positions. Now, it is certainly clear that there is disagreement over the nature of the positions. Before the argument can be "winnable" the nature of the argument must be defined. What is being argued? Is the argument - "DMs have too much power - they should bow to the players!"? Or is it "The DM is in charge - the final arbiter of the rules. Screw the Players!". Obviously it isn't either of those. We're clearly arguing over a spectrum. In the case where a DM does not have a character of his own (likely the majority of campaigns) he (or she) certainly needs a role. Players also contribute to the game. The question then becomes - How much participation can the players have in elements of the game that are commonly assumed to be the dominion of the DM? How will that change the game? Will it make it better, or will it make it worse. Now, that I've defined the arguement, I'd appreciate a civil tone in the following discussion. I'll also immediately attempt to clarify my thoughts on what is "best" as far as the spectrum, and why - realizing of course that it can vary from group to group - and that certainly some groups will do better with a large amount of participation by the players, and others would suffer for it.
a_psh 12-07-06, 10:54 PM	Social utility? I'm enjoying a leisure time activity, not trying to improve the destiny of mankind or raise the standard of living.Social utility within the group. Soul-searching, the exploration of friendships, &c. Addressing some kind of concept in-game is a great way to not just have fun but actually become better friends. Like a compeling book or movie, a good gaming session should change you just a little bit.
Matthew77 12-07-06, 10:55 PM	Then you're not showing us the scene that mattered. Everything in that conflict was pre-defined last week and nothing they do this week means anything, other than as a test of each other's boundaries. In other words, both the Host and Guest are there to have a confrontation about social power and nothing else. Alright. I guess if you look at it that way, then I would say the Host should have more social power than the Guest, and on some issues (such as selecting the dinner menu and picking the guest list) the Host has all the social power, and the guests should only be offering suggestions. EDIT: "all" is a strong word, too strong for this discussion. Amend that to "most". But the translation back to D&D terms isn't easy, as I don't see my gaming sessions as confrontations over social power. (I never said it was a good analogy, it just grew a life of its own)
pres_man 12-07-06, 11:06 PM	So a DM who spends a portion of their budget and puts more into the game all week than the players (game planning) should just let the players get their way all the time? I don't think so. All the time? Exagerate much? Besides, this whole, "get their way", sounds like we are talking about children. I would assume we are suppose to be talking about competent players and competent DMs. In that case, yes, all the players (the DM is one too) should get a say in game mechanics issues. The DM runs the NPCs, so he makes decisions for them, just as other players make decisions for their PCs. Yet game mechanics issues should certainly be up for discussion by all and vote by all. Of course most non-DM players just don't give a hoot about a lot of the stuff, and are more than willing to let the DM decide on it. Leave money out of this, we all spend it to play so the players are not more burdended by this part of D&D than the DM. My point was, they have resources invested as well. Why shouldn't they have a say in it. I paid my $35 for my PHB, I dang well should get a say in how trip works if we are going deviate from the core rules. No one said that a DM who works with their group is a push-over or has no self esteem. Not sure where you are getting that from. This is an exageration, just like some exagerate about a DM always changing things because a player wants it, you know, like how you started your post here. Furthermore, making consistent demands makes you a whiner and a jerk, not a one time offense at a demand. Wouldn't that depend on the nature of the demands? I mean if the DM keeps trying to change how things worked because "that's how it worked in 2 edition" for example, should a player have the right to speak up? A good leader should use their authority, not abuse it. There is a difference here. I guess that is based on how you see authority. I don't think a good leader needs to resort to saying, "I'm the boss follow me." A good leader will have people follow them because they want to. Ok, banning material is NOT an indication of a bad DM. This statement is far from truth. Which is why I never claimed it was. What I said was a DM that unilaterally bans stuff and is incapable of convincing the other players that this is a good idea is a bad DM. If their whole argument as to why they are banning it is, "Because I am the DM and I can do whatever I want." Then they are a bad DM. Authority is not a negative word but it seems a few have made it that way during the course of this thread. You can have and use authority for good purposes. Yes, this is true, as long as you remember that the authority is given to you and can be taken back at anytime. And that unilateral use of authority is almost never going to be a good idea.
deadDMwalking 12-07-06, 11:15 PM	The question then becomes - How much participation can the players have in elements of the game that are commonly assumed to be the dominion of the DM? How will that change the game? Will it make it better, or will it make it worse. 1) Communication is the most important thing in any game. Whether the DM has absolute control or not, constantly doing things "his way" without regard for the wishes of the players will result in him losing those players. The game is supposed to be about having fun. Because it is a group dynamic, there are a number of people who's wishes and desires need to be consulted. No one person (whether the DM or a player) should have all the fun. This attempt to make things better for most people can ruin things for some players. There are some rules that I may have for my games that I expect all players to adbide by. If they choose not to, I don't mind losing them. In my mind, these rules are important because they allow everybody to have fun. For example, as a general rule, I don't allow evil characters (there are exceptions with good role-playing reasons, but it must be approved in advance). Why such a restriction? Shouldn't the players have full control of their character? If a character kills the innocent princess after she was kidnapped, cuts off her head and impales it on a spike, then rapes the dead body - I have a problem with that. I don't think I should have to subject myself to a game I can't enjoy to satisfy someone else's twisted fantasies. I'm okay with those kinds of limitations - and generally they're fine for (most) of the group. Likewise, players should communicate with the DM about what their character concept is, and what they'd like to do with their background. The DM should say "Well, I know you'd like to play a Ranger, but since the campaign we've been talking about will occur exclusively within one city - everyone agreed it would be an urban campaign - it might not be a good idea. You might be bored. Maybe the urban ranger variant can work for you." That is communication. It isn't a "hard no", but it isn't a yes. And of course, the primary motivation for the DMs rules should be the fun of the players (as a whole). 2) Trust is vital. If the DM is going to be responsible for creating the mechanics, the players should know that he will follow the rules, or that if breaks the rules, it is in order to create a more fun game. For example, most players like a tough fight every now and then. Creating a unique monster that is both mindless and has feats breaks the rules - but, if it creates an awesome encounter that leaves a lasting impression, what's wrong with that? If the players don't trust the DM to be fair, impartial and focus on providing a more fun game, the rest of the DMs job is more difficult. It is also important that the DM can trust the players to act in character, to be honest (no calling a nat 1 a nat 20) and to avoid quibbling over minor rules disputes at the expense of the game. Noboby wants to sit around for 2 1/2 hours while the exact nature of grappling is worked out. A good DM can make a decision, the rest of the group will accept it, and after the game more research can be done regarding whether the DMs ruling was right or wrong. 3) The point in having a DM is to ensure that the game stays on track and ideally is fun for everyone. Watching movies as a group is fun. So is talking about what happened last weekend and general chatting. But, the reason we all play D&D is because we think there is something even more special about the game. Keeping the focus can be hard in a group dynamic. If nothing else, the DM is in charge of the pacing of the game and keeping the group "on task". This does not mean railroading, but it does mean creating action when things get bogged down and engaging the players. 4) The players should be ready to be engaged. Their most important duty is to create a character that can adventure in the game world. They should also consider the nature of other characters. Making a mute loner that hates every living creature doesn't work in a party. The game isn't fun for the 4 people sitting around while the one character "follows the party at a distance" and always asks "What's happening where I am?". Most of the other things can be worked out between the players and the DM in a give-and-take. Most of it should occur before the game starts. Talking about what the campaign will entail (will it be urban, outdoors, mixed, etc), what flavor it will have (oriental, firearms, etc) what races and classes work. Now, after this has been decided (while not set in stone) everyone should work within that framework. The DM only has a little lattitude. Expanding the game isn't always a bad thing. A world is a very big place, and sometimes things that weren't allowed in the beginning might be allowed later. There is nothing wrong with a few pleasant (or unpleasant) surprises. They make the game interesting. I think that mostly covers what I think ought to be communicated on the issue.
deadDMwalking 12-07-06, 11:23 PM	As an afterthought - there is nothing wrong with a DM saying "I have an awesome idea for a campaign. It involves X, Y, & Z. If most of the players want to play that game (let's say all but one) then that player should go along with the group. For example, in a low magic game where everyone is a human, but one player wants to be a "living hand" like "Thing" from the Adam's Family, that would be a problem. As a DM, I would say no, even if the majority of other players think it would be okay. It isn't to be "unfair", but to try to make the game more enjoyable for everybody. Part of the fun is versimilitude. A living (undead) hand may detract from it. Now, if most of the players don't want to play in that kind of campaign, I, as the DM, should go back to the drawing board. If they all want high-magic, but I want to run low-magic, I'm under no obligation to create the game. Someone else can do it as well. The DM doesn't have to "cave-in" to player demands, and the players don't have to put up with an unreasonable DM. Where everybody is reasonable (which can happen) there is a lot more room for negotiation.
GospelofRob 12-08-06, 12:04 AM	Quote: Originally Posted by Magnus_the_Mad View Post So a DM who spends a portion of their budget and puts more into the game all week than the players (game planning) should just let the players get their way all the time? I don't think so. All the time? Exagerate much? Besides, this whole, "get their way", sounds like we are talking about children. I would assume we are suppose to be talking about competent players and competent DMs. In that case, yes, all the players (the DM is one too) should get a say in game mechanics issues. The DM runs the NPCs, so he makes decisions for them, just as other players make decisions for their PCs. Yet game mechanics issues should certainly be up for discussion by all and vote by all. Of course most non-DM players just don't give a hoot about a lot of the stuff, and are more than willing to let the DM decide on it. Distraction to put focus on deaddmwalking. Dead, you've brought up some important points, and over all have hit many of my opionions on the supject. As DM, I would add that a DM has the right to "control" certain things. I don't use the word ban because it implies never getting to use it. My main reason for this is that there is a double standered in life. I take a lot of flack from people for this, but its the way I think things should work. Everything needs DM approval, and a DM has the rite to tell you you can't use a certain combo, or book. I dealt with 2 munchkins in a group, the kind that make chamelon/divine metamagic combos. I felt they had no right to do such things, since the rest of the group would become unnecessary. As a DM, I would not let them use something that would unbalance the game, before the game started. I also make sure to get a complete for thought character plan. It helps cut of these problems at the gate. The big thing I run into is letting other people, say use chamelon. Different people need different limits, or rather, need to know where the limits are. (I execpt trouble from this, tear it to pieces!) Oh, and I have a question about player (singular) taking out DM. My group ran into this problem with me, since one player actively turned against me in my campaign. Does this one player deserve the right to remove a dm, just because an atlernative exists, such as another campaign? And as a DM, do we fight to get him back, or just let him leave? (all under the conditions that good friends are involved, and DM enjoyed playing with that player.)
Magnus_the_Mad 12-08-06, 03:11 AM	All the time? Exagerate much? Just following the current trend in this thread :) My point was, they have resources invested as well. Why shouldn't they have a say in it. I paid my $35 for my PHB, I dang well should get a say in how trip works if we are going deviate from the core rules. So you bought a book to get a say in the game? I buy material because I find it fun and interesting to read. As a DM, I'm also looking to find more material that my players might show an interest in and that they can possibly incorporate into their next character. As you have stated though, this situation assumes that all participants are mature and level headed individuals working together and not against each other to create a fun gaming environment. So given this statement I will say that I always listen to my players ideas and will try to incorporate them if I feel that it fits the flavor of the campaign. Wouldn't that depend on the nature of the demands? I mean if the DM keeps trying to change how things worked because "that's how it worked in 2 edition" for example, should a player have the right to speak up? Not really. Constantly demanding something until you get the answer you want is not the same as having the right to speak up. Of course you as a player or a DM have a right to speak up. But you do not have the right to badger the DM or other players with your demands until you are satisfied with an answer you like. That's called being a pain in the ass. I guess that is based on how you see authority. I don't think a good leader needs to resort to saying, "I'm the boss follow me." A good leader will have people follow them because they want to. Unless people are just opposed to authority in general no matter how benevolent or just a leader is. Some folks just don't accept authority because they feel it leads to evil acts in the end. Which is why I never claimed it was. Oh really? What's this then? a bad DM will ban something and claim it is his right to as the DM. What I said was a DM that unilaterally bans stuff and is incapable of convincing the other players that this is a good idea is a bad DM. If their whole argument as to why they are banning it is, "Because I am the DM and I can do whatever I want." Then they are a bad DM. :uh-huh: Perhaps you should have just said that in the first place because your original statement does not reflect this expounded explanation. See, it may not necessarily be their right but it is part of the duty to approve and reject content. Should a reason be given? As long as you are not giving away key elements of the plot that would ruin the game for the players then sure. It eases the minds of the players and builds the trust between the DM and each other. Contrary to what posters may think about me "conning" my players or trying to pull the wool over their eyes, I do listen to my group and work with them. I've know most of them for five years plus. We are all good friends and share a very similar taste for the game so there is almost never a disagreement in how I adjucate and how they play. Yes, this is true, as long as you remember that the authority is given to you and can be taken back at anytime. And that unilateral use of authority is almost never going to be a good idea. :thumbsup: agreed!
CharlieRock 12-08-06, 08:55 AM	A shell game as in an exercise in illusionism? A one-man show? The pretense that you're contributing something to the game when you're not? Why play anything that way at all? ... An illusion of the imagination. Shadows dancing on the wall, maybe. No one man show as all the team manipulates their own shadows. I contribute only to the imagination. If I were the only one watching the sahdows, then you could say it is a one-man show. Since the players are putting their own shadows up, intermingled with ones I created, that is the shared experience. Which in all reality, is nothing at all. Even if your playing.
pres_man 12-08-06, 09:06 AM	Oh really? What's this then? :uh-huh: Perhaps you should have just said that in the first place because your original statement does not reflect this expounded explanation. Well for the sake of keeping posts to a smaller level (I know as a reader if someone seems overblown, I may skip their post or just scan it), I had hoped the reader would look at the context of a given sentence and not that one sentence. Here is the context the sentence was made: Likewise a bad DM will ban something and claim it is his right to as the DM. A good DM will discuss why something might not be in the best interest in the group and find a middle ground to work with the player on it. Now if you look at this pair of sentences, you will see the meaning is exactly the same as what I expounded on, but individually the sentence may appear not to be. As a personal example, I had a player join my game six(?) months ago. After about two(?) months she began to ask about using a PrC that her former DM had made up for her. After she explained what it did, my first thought was it was totally unbalanced, but that is not what I said. What I said was, "Interesting, can you let me look at the details. Otherwise perhaps we can look over the rules we are [all] currently using and see if we get the same feel using those." I wasn't banning it, what I was doing is being a leader and trying to convince the player to use a more balanced approach. In the end the player came up with a way she was satisfied with the rules being used in order to get the feel she wanted. On a side note, this other DM did a one shot for our group, and a couple of times when he was making bad rulings several members of the group turned to me to correct him. Knowing this was a one shot and the DM was gaming with several people he didn't really know, I choose to give him some slack and told the others, "Let's just play it his way for tonight." That is also being a leader.
Matthew77 12-08-06, 09:08 AM	I want to say I agree with everything DeadDMWalking said. And apparently his diplomacy check is way higher than mine :D However, by phrasing your comments in the fashion "when deciding the DM should consider X,Y and Z", you presuppose the fact that it is the DM making the decision. Not the players, not group consensus, but the DM alone. Which according to this thread, makes you an egotistical maniac control freak.
CharlieRock 12-08-06, 09:10 AM	Well for the sake of keeping posts to a smaller level (I know as a reader if someone seems overblown, I may skip their post or just scan it), I had hoped the reader would look at the context of a given sentence and not that one sentence. Here is the context the sentence was made: Sometimes ,when I read a sentence in a post I totally disagree with (this is especially true if it is one of the beginning sentences) I tend to regard the rest in similar disagreement. Kind of a 'yeah, what ever'. I like that my sliced finger has only effected my typing a lot, too.
Matthew77 12-08-06, 09:16 AM	On a side note, this other DM did a one shot for our group, and a couple of times when he was making bad rulings several members of the group turned to me to correct him. Knowing this was a one shot and the DM was gaming with several people he didn't really know, I choose to give him some slack and told the others, "Let's just play it his way for tonight." That is also being a leader. See, now I would interpret this attitude differently. To me, it sounds like you are being condescending and smug. Who are you to "choose" to "give him some slack" in the middle of his game? If a new DM asks for your advice or help, by all means share your experience, but don't just assume you know best and cop an attitude. Especially don't wink and shrug at the other players behind his back. Hopefully I misinterpreted your intentions here, but if I was this new DM, I'd be very offended that you weren't honest with me.
pres_man 12-08-06, 09:37 AM	Which according to this thread, makes you an egotistical maniac control freak. Why do you feel the need to try to incite people? Nobody has said a DM can not make any decisions unilaterally. Obviously a DM controls the NPCs and makes decisions for them just as the players make decisions for the PCs. What people have said is a DM that thinks it is his right to make changes on a WHIM is often an egotistical maniac control freak. Sometimes ,when I read a sentence in a post I totally disagree with (this is especially true if it is one of the beginning sentences) I tend to regard the rest in similar disagreement. Kind of a 'yeah, what ever'. As do I myself, but clearly that is a failing us the reader, not the writer, wouldn't you agree? And people call me egotistical? I don't call you that, I merely say many of your posts make it seem like you are. You seriously just sat there all smug and superior, mocking him behind his back, just assuming you were right and humoring him? Actually, I wasn't assuming anything, he was wrong. For example he claimed the metamagic rods made you use a higher slot, just like the feat. Basically believing the rods merely gave you access to the feat. This is clearly not the correct rules for those rods. Metamagic Rods: Metamagic rods hold the essence of a metamagic feat but do not change the spell slot of the altered spell. This is just one example, the most glaring one that comes to mind immediately. I hope you at least spoke to him privately after the game and offered some suggestions on how he could improve his game (or at least make him DM more like you do), since apparently you're the Master DM and do everything right. ;) Nice. No I didn't, as I said this was a one-shot session, and he is not currently DMing as far as I know. If he was to consistently DM in a game I was participating in, you dang right I would have discussed things with him outside of the game. But considering how he and the player had previously talked, I had a feeling they had thought their gaming experience was a good one, so I would not feel it was my place to say that he is gaming wrong because for his previous group he might not have been. But no, I don't get everything right, it is because I don't always get everything right that I listen to my players and I never feel I have the right to make changes on a WHIM. If I did believe I was always right, then I would probably believe I did have that right. I quote again "I choose to give him some slack". Wow. Could you be a little more condescending? Well, I could have been an asshat and pointed out all of the mistakes he was making as we went along, but I choose not to. That is giving him slack (perhaps enought to hang himself with). Please tell me I misinterpreted your actions. Perception is the lens we view reality. If that is how you interpreted it, then it is real to you.
pres_man 12-08-06, 09:46 AM	I'll responde to your edited comments To me, it sounds like you are being condescending and smug. Who are you to "choose" to "give him some slack" in the middle of his game? I am myself. I have every right to make decisions on my own behaviour. If I choose not to "whine" (using Magnus_the_Mad's definition) about how the DM is doing things wrong, isn't that my right? If a new DM asks for your advice or help, by all means share your experience, but don't just assume you know best and cop an attitude. Especially don't wink and shrug at the other players behind his back. Well that wasn't the case here. As I said, the player who joined my game had played under this DM, this wasn't a new DM. If a DM asks me for advice and help they get it, they had also better be careful because I sometimes give out too much truth for some. Hopefully I misinterpreted your intentions here, but if I was this new DM, I'd be very offended that you weren't honest with me. This wasn't a new DM, though it should be noted if it was a new DM that thought they knew everything, I probably would have acted the same. If it was a new DM who knew he wasn't sure and asked for advice, I would happily give it to him, as I would to any DM. In fact when I DM I often ask another player at the table who DMs what he thinks of something, as well as open it up to all of the players to comment.
CharlieRock 12-08-06, 10:27 AM	As do I myself, but clearly that is a failing us the reader, not the writer, wouldn't you agree? Quite right. This internal failing is one I am most strident in trying to overcome, especially with the (sometime) high degree of reason in given the opposed argument. ;)
deadDMwalking 12-08-06, 10:32 AM	I'm still curious to know how exactly players get a "say" in the ongoing events of a campaign. There was talk about how the players decided a group of mercenaries were an enemy, and another group where they decided a bladesinger would be an ally. Did they decide these things out of game? Or did they just "make it happen" by role-playing? Obviously the players can change reality - or more to the point, reality adjusts to accomodate the actions of the players. For example, if my campaign has a dragon, and the players kill that dragon, reality has been changed through their actions. I have no problem with such a change occuring because of their actions. I do have a problem with letting the players decide what their challenges should be. For example, they go to kill the dragon, and then one of the players says "Wouldn't it be cool if the dragon just died of old age and all that treasure is sitting around unguarded?" and al the other players agree, I'll say something like "That would be nice. Too bad for you." In that sense, a game that I run is not a democracy. The players don't get to vote about what will happen in the game world. I decide based upon what I think could be the most fun for the party as a whole. I base my decisions about what I know the players want, particularly the elements they've incorporated into their backstory. When a player wants something I think would ruin the game, I say no. Reapeatedly if necessary. Perhaps there are some that think this makes me a bad DM. I disagree. So how does the communal decision making work? Does the DM have final say? What happens when everybody at the table agrees except for a single dissenting player? What are his rights versus that of the other players and the DM? Are you letting each player be supreme as far as their character goes? Is there a boudary they can't cross. Earlier the example of a player bringing a ninja character class in a "european" style game after everyone agreed not to do that. What if the situation were similar, but slightly exaggerated. What if the player came with a homebrew race - A Kryptonian - DR 20/-, immune to cold, electricity, fire, acid, sonic - able to cast cone of cold (as a breath weapon) at will, or scorching ray (2 rays, one from each eye) at will in addition to being able to fly? Obviously that isn't a reasonable homebrew race (particularly for LA+0). Now, I'm sure that such a character might be a blast to play. I see it as my job as a DM to say "no". It might be fun, but it won't work for the kind of game I envision - which is also fun, but it involves everyone having a similar power-level.....
starfire311 12-08-06, 12:36 PM	Earlier the example of a player bringing a ninja character class in a "european" style game after everyone agreed not to do that. What if the situation were similar, but slightly exaggerated. What if the player came with a homebrew race - A Kryptonian - DR 20/-, immune to cold, electricity, fire, acid, sonic - able to cast cone of cold (as a breath weapon) at will, or scorching ray (2 rays, one from each eye) at will in addition to being able to fly? Obviously that isn't a reasonable homebrew race (particularly for LA+0). Now, I'm sure that such a character might be a blast to play. I see it as my job as a DM to say "no". It might be fun, but it won't work for the kind of game I envision - which is also fun, but it involves everyone having a similar power-level..... I think the basic argument is that, no you as the DM wouldn't have to say NO unilaterality to this, odds are a player has already given him heck for just suggesting it. But if all the players in your group indeed feel that there is nothing wrong with his homebrew race, then maybe you should considor allowing it, since if all the players think it fits the feel and it won't unblanace it perhaps you were wrong in your judgement, I would try to convince the players of my POV and if they still all want the kryptonian in the game, perhaps it is time to considor letting someone else DM or finding another group, since this one has gone off the deep end.
Matthew77 12-08-06, 12:54 PM	Pres_Man, sorry about the mid-stream edit of my last comment. As soon as I typed it, I realized I could make my point using less inflammatory language and without the personal attacks.
archcomponent 12-08-06, 01:06 PM	The odd thing is that controlling DMs seem to assert that if they did not keep their players in line with complete control, they would have a game like the following: Ok how about this an example then? DM: Ok guys character creation night. I'm thinking we'll do an early med evil fantasy game, set in england around the 1300's. Its fantasy so there are still wizards. But bear in mind that 99% of the population is illerate so they aren't common. Society is ruled by the King, and his lords. The only other source of governing power is the church. And it's power is consisterable. Player 1: I want to be a ninja! They are cool. DM: But ninjas are orienental, we're in england...Europe. Would you guys perfer an oriental styled game? Perhaps fuedal Japan? Players: Ya-ya that cool! DM: Ok we're moving to feudal japan. The island is ruled by the 7 shugan. Justice is dispensed by local judges, acting on behave of the shugan. Honar, and displine is the name of the game. Player 2: Sweet i want to play a boy who discovers power armour! And has a battle mech. DM....I thought were agreed on ancient Japan, but ok we can do mordern area. let me get my copy of BESM. Player 3: I want to play a jedi! The force is awsome...And I can destroy the sith and fly cool space ships! DM...ok stars it is I guess. Player 1: Are there ninjas on coresant? I wanna be a ninja! Player 2 what about battle mechs. I don't want to sub with gay AT-STs. player 4: Hey guys check out my way cool Pirate! He sails the high seas in search of adventure, loote, and hot chicks! he wields cool rapier, and has his own ship with a loyal crew, and I even gave him ranks in profession sailor. Oh I'm planing on going into scarlet corsair. Does anyone mind? DM: Uhm I don't have that book... Player 4: Your gimping my character! I'm walking! Player 1: What about ninjas! I wanna play my ninjas...pirates and ninjas hate each other..PvP? Player 4: But my guy is soooo cool, How come i have to change! Player 2: Does power armour have a check penaly? Would that apply to swim checks, in case i fall over board? Player 3: Is the jedi temple in Port Royal? This is someone else's real example. Which makes me wonder if they really do game with people like that, or if that is simply their opinion of players. In either case, it is horribly sad.
a_psh 12-08-06, 02:02 PM	I'm still curious to know how exactly players get a "say" in the ongoing events of a campaign.Far from comprehensive, but... 1.) In order for everyone to weild authority, everyone must have responsibility. 2.) Everyone in the group is speaking up when it comes to addressing theme. The GM is not unilaterally controling the meaning of the story, if you will. For a game that includes moral issues, for example, the GM doesn't sit in judgement over the characters as moral beings. The players do that. This is a necessary prerequisite for the moral issues you want to explore to have any significance at all. 3.) The shared imagined space is maintained. Everyone realizes that their own internal imagination of something may be a bit different from someone else's, but strives to keep them together rather than sitting in a corner and not taking input from anyone else. In order to accomplish this, there must be some method for anyone to introduce details and color from his head into the shared imagined space. In other words, everyone has narrational authority, at least. I don't think it's a mistake to still put setting authority in one person's hands if the rest of the group finds that to just be easier, but everyone who's standing up for it as the one true way is sorely, terribly misguided. There was talk about how the players decided a group of mercenaries were an enemy, and another group where they decided a bladesinger would be an ally. Did they decide these things out of game? Or did they just "make it happen" by role-playing?Same group, same session. They made the mercenaries enemies through bog-standard in-character interaction with them. I didn't write them in to be villains, however. See the note about moral decisions in "2", above. We actually created the bladeslinger in the first five minutes of play, with someone throwing out an idea, me tweaking it, and someone else tweaking it some more. He then became an NPC like any other, to be interacted with in-character. Anything you want clarified about the example? I do have a problem with letting the players decide what their challenges should be.Isn't just plain taking or not taking a plot hook already deciding what the challenge should or shouldn't be? (Well, the difference here is that plot hooks are supposed to "hook" you, I suppose -- the GM is favoring one result over the other when he introduces one. Folks seldom throw plot hooks and hope that the group doesn't take them.) For example, they go to kill the dragon, and then one of the players says "Wouldn't it be cool if the dragon just died of old age and all that treasure is sitting around unguarded?" and al the other players agree, I'll say something like "That would be nice. Too bad for you."See "1" above. Everyone has a responsibility to the group. Everyone at the table should contribute to an interesting play experience and a story that doesn't suck. If an idea is lame, it's lame, regardless of who pitched it. I disagree. So how does the communal decision making work? Does the DM have final say? What happens when everybody at the table agrees except for a single dissenting player? What are his rights versus that of the other players and the DM? Are you letting each player be supreme as far as their character goes? Is there a boudary they can't cross.There are always boundaries you can't cross in any RPG. The GM raping your character is a classic example of a pretty obvious (though not universal) one. Another player can't rape your character, either. In any game, various types of authority are freely and tacitly shared. Narrational authority (the simple ability to describe what's happening) is the simplest example. You could have only one person do that, but then the others wouldn't get to speak very often. Most D&D groups specifically seem to just kind of quietly share it without pretending it's a real thing. What you could call "traditional" RPGs come down hard on having the GM have nearly-exclusive plot and setting authority and spell that out explicitly in the books. You can negotiate narrational authority without even thinking about it, and have a disagreement maybe once a month... is it that alien to think the same can be true of other types of authority, to some extent? Some games go further and codify this stuff, with resolution mechanics focused on resolving these kinds of conflicts rather than just figuring out whether a character accomplishes a task or not -- that can make it easier to go truly GM-less, but going GM-less shouldn't be the ultimate goal. The ultimate goal is just plain creating that shared imagined space and actually sharing it. Having one guy who runs all the NPCs isn't an obstacle to that. Having one guy who actually makes all the important decisions... is. Earlier the example of a player bringing a ninja character class in a "european" style game after everyone agreed not to do that. What if the situation were similar, but slightly exaggerated. What if the player came with a homebrew race - A Kryptonian - DR 20/-, immune to cold, electricity, fire, acid, sonic - able to cast cone of cold (as a breath weapon) at will, or scorching ray (2 rays, one from each eye) at will in addition to being able to fly? Obviously that isn't a reasonable homebrew race (particularly for LA+0). Now, I'm sure that such a character might be a blast to play. I see it as my job as a DM to say "no". It might be fun, but it won't work for the kind of game I envision - which is also fun, but it involves everyone having a similar power-level.....The same factors that motivate you as a GM to feel responsible for saying "no" should be motivating other players to do that, too. Heck, they should be motivating the player who pitched the idea in the first place to reject it himself. Authority without responsibility doesn't work. It's just that too many people are used to the GM not only being the sole voice of many kinds of authority (no game truly concentrates all authority in the GM) but the sole voice of responsibility as well: "try for whatever you want, the GM will keep you in line if you stray too far!" is the logic. Playing that way sucks. It means one guy is the damn babysitter for the entire group. Most of the crazy creative problems people refer to just plain don't and can't happen if everyone at the table is actually acting like an adult and is invested in the game.
a_psh 12-08-06, 02:06 PM	This is someone else's real example.Wow. I think that example has to be made up. Well, at least the tail end of it. The last line is just too cute. It's like they're counting on the GM to solve all of their problems because they never learned to take responsibility for what goes on in the shared imagined space themselves. Which, to be honest, seems to be a side-effect of playing with a truly dictatorial GM: there's no way for you to step up, so you just kind of learn to check out instead.
HamHam 12-08-06, 02:30 PM	It's like they're counting on the GM to solve all of their problems because they never learned to take responsibility for what goes on in the shared imagined space themselves. Which, to be honest, seems to be a side-effect of playing with a truly dictatorial GM: there's no way for you to step up, so you just kind of learn to check out instead. QFT!
starfire311 12-08-06, 04:50 PM	The odd thing is that controlling DMs seem to assert that if they did not keep their players in line with complete control, they would have a game like the following: Ok how about this an example then? DM: Ok guys character creation night. I'm thinking we'll do an early med evil fantasy game, set in england around the 1300's. Its fantasy so there are still wizards. But bear in mind that 99% of the population is illerate so they aren't common. Society is ruled by the King, and his lords. The only other source of governing power is the church. And it's power is consisterable. Player 1: I want to be a ninja! They are cool. DM: But ninjas are orienental, we're in england...Europe. Would you guys perfer an oriental styled game? Perhaps fuedal Japan? Players: Ya-ya that cool! DM: Ok we're moving to feudal japan. The island is ruled by the 7 shugan. Justice is dispensed by local judges, acting on behave of the shugan. Honar, and displine is the name of the game. Player 2: Sweet i want to play a boy who discovers power armour! And has a battle mech. DM....I thought were agreed on ancient Japan, but ok we can do mordern area. let me get my copy of BESM. Player 3: I want to play a jedi! The force is awsome...And I can destroy the sith and fly cool space ships! DM...ok stars it is I guess. Player 1: Are there ninjas on coresant? I wanna be a ninja! Player 2 what about battle mechs. I don't want to sub with gay AT-STs. player 4: Hey guys check out my way cool Pirate! He sails the high seas in search of adventure, loote, and hot chicks! he wields cool rapier, and has his own ship with a loyal crew, and I even gave him ranks in profession sailor. Oh I'm planing on going into scarlet corsair. Does anyone mind? DM: Uhm I don't have that book... Player 4: Your gimping my character! I'm walking! Player 1: What about ninjas! I wanna play my ninjas...pirates and ninjas hate each other..PvP? Player 4: But my guy is soooo cool, How come i have to change! Player 2: Does power armour have a check penaly? Would that apply to swim checks, in case i fall over board? Player 3: Is the jedi temple in Port Royal? This is someone else's real example. Which makes me wonder if they really do game with people like that, or if that is simply their opinion of players. In either case, it is horribly sad. the funny thing is, currently I have a ninja charcater, a jedi and a battle mech all in the game I am running, I am setting it in my own homebrew d20 future game, but there isn't really a ninja in the game, just a ninja like character, she is a spy/assassin/martial artist she has been refered to as a ninja though... we also have a jedi(actually PsyWar/homebrew psi-duelist PrC, but has same flavor as a jedi, this player really wanted to play a jedi, I was able to work with him to allow him to do this, in a way that the group liked, originally there were not supposed to be jedi in this setting), and the group just found a suit of power armor, only one person has used it and he wasn't very good with it, so they sold it. We also have a genetically engineered tank type character(think almost superman-like), a cyborg bounty hunter, and a net runner. So, I guess I really do game with people like that, not that it is my ideal game, but I am having fun running it and they are having fun playing it.
a_psh 12-08-06, 05:33 PM	the funny thing is, currently I have a ninja charcater, a jedi and a battle mech all in the game I am runningLooks like you've hit upon something basic, which is that tropes are pretty easy to mix -- it's the details that get in the way. As long as the players want to be something like a Jedi, something like a pirate, and something like a ninja, it's not that difficult to weave them together. The original example seems mostly to be dysfunctional because people are shown insisting that the details be just like they imagine them -- nobody is actually sharing imagination, in other words; everyone just wants to make his own idea without working with anyone else's. You see this happening in games where people just seem to zone out during certain scenes.
On_the_wings_of_TPK 12-08-06, 05:35 PM	This is someone else's real example. Which makes me wonder if they really do game with people like that, or if that is simply their opinion of players. In either case, it is horribly sad. The thing is that, that example was ment to illistrate that not everyone is going to agree all the time. Ever try to get a group of 8 poeple agree on what to put on their pizzia? the thing with with the consenus modle is that it assumes that everyone will be able to agree on what they want to play. They do not. Your still left with what to do when marry, and tom want to play two mutually exclusives concepts. Tom: I want to be a blackguard. Marry: I was hoping for a paladin of rightouseness. Who gives up their concept, Marry of Tom? For those that believe these situations do not happen, i seem to recall a recent dispute between to old time posters on this very board. Something about one player wanting to play a radent servant of Plaour, and the other a Vampire. Now we could pretend that these situations don't happen. But thats kinda like sticking our heads ion the sand instead of actually doing something about the tiger coming at us. So I ask again, what do we do in that situation? Marry really has her heart set on paladin. Ad Tom has been looking forward to playing a Blackgruad for months. Who get disaapointed?
archcomponent 12-08-06, 05:46 PM	Ever try to get a group of 8 poeple agree on what to put on their pizzia? Yes I have. Remarkably, it can be done without anyone starving, crying, or at each other's throats. And all this without a 'pizza overlord' who controls the order at his whim because he is making the phone call. Although if Mary and Tom end up pulling each other's hair and shouting because they want their favorite toppings on every pie, perhaps daddy does need to step in. That is what happens when eight year olds make dinner plans. Thankfully, most people learn to function as adults somewhere along the way.
a_psh 12-08-06, 05:55 PM	Okay, so either Mary or Tom is getting "disappointed"... but how does having GM Greg there to half-arbitrarily decide that Mary is the one getting shafted this time help the situation? Well, it helps you move on. Just like having the guy actually making the phone call just go "Okay, screw it, if you can't agree, we're just getting cheese!" helps you move on. That's vaguely useful, at the least. You could say that's a pretty decent reason to have some kind of GM. I think so. But the GM in that example is simply making a default decision rather than imposing his will. He's a bit like the Vice President in the Senate, who just gets one vote but looks impressive when he votes because he's casting the tie-breaking vote. Hardly an exercise of broad power, is it? Surely there's something more to being the "final authority" than literally being the last guy anyone consults? If the GM's like The Guy Making the Phone Call when you order pizza, he's got some authority there to go with his responsibility, but he's not just gonna go and shout "Give me Hawaiian!" into the phone when the whole group has been slow about choosing between their two favorites ricotta-and-sausage vs. white-with-broccoli. (He always could, since he has the phone at the moment, but it's breaking the social contract to do so.) Or Tom and Mary or the pizza group could just flip a coin. I mean, that's what you're doing when you roll dice, isn't it? Putting the power to determine the outcome of something not in the hands of any specific person at the table but under the dominion of probability and luck? If the GM is truly god of everything, why are you rolling dice? No, if the GM does need tons and tons of power, this kind of basic dispute resolution isn't where its coming from. This is basically just what mechanics do already, for the most part.
archcomponent 12-08-06, 05:59 PM	Okay, so either Mary or Tom is getting "disappointed"... but how does having GM Greg there to half-arbitrarily decide that Mary is the one getting shafted this time help the situation? What I want to know is how Mary and Tom function in the real world. Do they really act like spastic selfish children? If they are going to a movie, do they need someone to be the Movie Master when they go out with friends? How on each are they so socially retarded - and I mean that in a developmental sense - that they really function like this? Is TPK trying to tell us that his players act like this in social settings? What, does he run a D&D game at a day care center? Because if the players need some sort of Daddy Mediary to handle their lack of basic conflict management and resolution skills for them and they are honest-to-god adults, they should probably seek some life counciling or something.
pres_man 12-08-06, 05:59 PM	So I ask again, what do we do in that situation? Marry really has her heart set on paladin. Ad Tom has been looking forward to playing a Blackgruad for months. Who get disaapointed? You let the group decide (which includes the DM). If everybody is ok with evil characters and in fact many of them are neutral with evil tendencies, then the paladin might not fit even without the blackguard issue. Likewise, if the group is not ok with evil characters then the blackguard might be a stretch anyway even if the paladin wasn't present. Basically which concept works best with the group as a whole. Just like the guy who wants to play the loner that never really joins the party, but wants to go on his own adventures and such. "Great idea, and when you get home tonight you can make adventures for him. But how about making a character that is going to be a party member for this game?" By the way, who said the comment with the quotes? The DM? Or any other player present? What assumptions are you making?
pres_man 12-08-06, 06:18 PM	I do have a problem with letting the players decide what their challenges should be. For example, they go to kill the dragon, and then one of the players says "Wouldn't it be cool if the dragon just died of old age and all that treasure is sitting around unguarded?" and al the other players agree, I'll say something like "That would be nice. Too bad for you." Well, that is an extreme example isn't it? But if it did happen? Just because nobody is currently guarding it doesn't mean nobody is on their way to get it, perhaps descendents of the dragon? "As you are sorting through the loot, you hear a roar as two dragons come into the room, wrestling. Suddenly they both notice you just as a third dragon enters following the first two. Mage, you know draconic, right? Well the third one says, 'Well brothers, we can decide who gets what out of mother dearest's horde after we have dealt with these treaspassers.' Roll Iniative!" A good DM should be able to springboard off of almost any idea. In that sense, a game that I run is not a democracy. The players don't get to vote about what will happen in the game world. I decide based upon what I think could be the most fun for the party as a whole. I base my decisions about what I know the players want, particularly the elements they've incorporated into their backstory. Right, it is more like a republic. You are "elected" to make certain decisions, but that doesn't mean you have total authority. And you can lose the authority you have if you reach too far. When a player wants something I think would ruin the game, I say no. Repeatedly if necessary. Perhaps there are some that think this makes me a bad DM. Well, first I would hope that you explain why it is a problem. In the end though, I would think it is a bigger problem that the entire group should address, unless it is so unbalancing that you would no longer find it possible for you to DM (due to lack of enjoyment or even just lack of skill). What happens when everybody at the table agrees except for a single dissenting player? What are his rights versus that of the other players and the DM? Are you letting each player be supreme as far as their character goes? Is there a boudary they can't cross. Of course, the group view should be respected. Now turn that around, what if it is the DM that is the single dissenting player? How is it wrong if it is not a DM but ok if it is a DM? Acting like a jerk is acting like a jerk, it doesn't make a difference if it is the DM or not. Earlier the example of a player bringing a ninja character class in a "european" style game after everyone agreed not to do that. What if the situation were similar, but slightly exaggerated. What if the player came with a homebrew race - A Kryptonian - DR 20/-, immune to cold, electricity, fire, acid, sonic - able to cast cone of cold (as a breath weapon) at will, or scorching ray (2 rays, one from each eye) at will in addition to being able to fly? Obviously that isn't a reasonable homebrew race (particularly for LA+0). Now, I'm sure that such a character might be a blast to play. I see it as my job as a DM to say "no". It might be fun, but it won't work for the kind of game I envision - which is also fun, but it involves everyone having a similar power-level..... Again it is a group issue, though I would say it is more likely that a DM would try to pull a stunt like that then a player. But if a player said, "I want to play this character that obvious breaks all of the ECL/LA rules, is everybody ok with that?" And everybody but the DM is ok, then perhaps the DM should step down if he has such a problem with it.
Lethanic 12-08-06, 06:53 PM	Well, that is an extreme example isn't it? But if it did happen? Just because nobody is currently guarding it doesn't mean nobody is on their way to get it, perhaps descendents of the dragon? "As you are sorting through the loot, you hear a roar as two dragons come into the room, wrestling. Suddenly they both notice you just as a third dragon enters following the first two. Mage, you know draconic, right? Well the third one says, 'Well brothers, we can decide who gets what out of mother dearest's horde after we have dealt with these treaspassers.' Roll Iniative!" A good DM should be able to springboard off of almost any idea. Right, it is more like a republic. You are "elected" to make certain decisions, but that doesn't mean you have total authority. And you can lose the authority you have if you reach too far. Well, first I would hope that you explain why it is a problem. In the end though, I would think it is a bigger problem that the entire group should address, unless it is so unbalancing that you would no longer find it possible for you to DM (due to lack of enjoyment or even just lack of skill). Of course, the group view should be respected. Now turn that around, what if it is the DM that is the single dissenting player? How is it wrong if it is not a DM but ok if it is a DM? Acting like a jerk is acting like a jerk, it doesn't make a difference if it is the DM or not. Again it is a group issue, though I would say it is more likely that a DM would try to pull a stunt like that then a player. But if a player said, "I want to play this character that obvious breaks all of the ECL/LA rules, is everybody ok with that?" And everybody but the DM is ok, then perhaps the DM should step down if he has such a problem with it. Yes they can lose the power. Its called the players quitting the game, but if they decide to stay in the game they are implicitly giving the DM his authority still> He can be impeached, but if they decide not to impeach him, all they are doing is grousing.
a_psh 12-08-06, 06:58 PM	Yes they can lose the power. Its called the players quitting the game, but if they decide to stay in the game they are implicitly giving the DM his authority still> He can be impeached, but if they decide not to impeach him, all they are doing is grousing.Or you could play with a more reasonable definition of "power" and settle conflicts intelligently and reasonably rather than with your feet.
Lethanic 12-08-06, 07:04 PM	Or you could play with a more reasonable definition of "power" and settle conflicts intelligently and reasonably rather than with your feet. And reasonable woudl be looking for something you enjoy which fits the setting and putting the 'other cool character concept' in the 'to be played' file and saving it for the next campaign or game, rather than insisting on shoehorning it in> Propose, but if its said it doesn't fit, move on. .
archcomponent 12-08-06, 07:10 PM	Yes they can lose the power. Its called the players quitting the game, but if they decide to stay in the game they are implicitly giving the DM his authority still> He can be impeached, but if they decide not to impeach him, all they are doing is grousing. If by any chance you have a DM who thinks this is appropriate social behavior and he manages to get a girlfriend, please warn her never to let him drive her anywhere. (That might go over your head, but trust me on it.)
a_psh 12-08-06, 07:10 PM	And reasonable woudl be looking for something you enjoy which fits the setting and putting the 'other cool character concept' in the 'to be played' file and saving it for the next campaign or game, rather than insisting on shoehorning it in> Propose, but if its said it doesn't fit, move on. .So, if you don't need someone else to constantly rein you in because you're a rational person rather than a tantrumy two-year-old, what's the point of giving away all of your creative authority to someone else?
Matthew77 12-08-06, 08:07 PM	A DM has more authority over decisions than the players because he has more knowledge. (knowledge here doesn't mean rules knowledge or out-of-game skills. I mean knowledge of the setting, knowledge of the NPC's plans, knowledge of the BBEG's plans and weaknesses, etc.) Because the DM has knowledge the players don't, he is uniquely qualified to make decisions affected by that knowledge. Examples: Does this NPC help the party? (the DM knows that he is secretly a spy for the BBEG). Can I play a Warlock? (the DM knows that a cabal of demon-worshippers recruits or kills any child that exhibits eldritch powers, and this group will be the main obstacle to the PCs so he doesn't want to reveal any information about the cult OOG.) I once ran a campaign based around swarms of low-level undead. I told my players "no clerics " without giving them a reason, because I didn't want to spoil the surprise of the campaign set-up. Maybe they assumed I just thought Clerics were an unbalanced class, maybe they thought it was just my whim. Once the campaign started they realized why I made that decision, and didn't let them discuss it first. (digression, I let them take levels of Cleric as the game progressed, I just didn't want someone to start as a mid-level cleric) If all this knowledge was shared by all players, the game would lose the elements of surprise, exploration and the "wow" moments when you discover that the princess is really a handmaiden of Lolth. The players trust that the DM has knowledge that they don't and that he's making decisions for the good of the game, even if they don't yet understand why. Superior access to knowledge is a justification for increased authority. Anyone in the "run the game as a consensus" camp want to address the issue of inequity of knowledge?
HamHam 12-08-06, 08:30 PM	Can I play a Warlock? (the DM knows that a cabal of demon-worshippers recruits or kills any child that exhibits eldritch powers, and this group will be the main obstacle to the PCs so he doesn't want to reveal any information about the cult OOG.) Huh? Wouldn't that mean having a Warlock in the party would in fact be a good plot hook? I once ran a campaign based around swarms of low-level undead. I told my players "no clerics " without giving them a reason, because I didn't want to spoil the surprise of the campaign set-up. Maybe they assumed I just thought Clerics were an unbalanced class, maybe they thought it was just my whim. Once the campaign started they realized why I made that decision, and didn't let them discuss it first. (digression, I let them take levels of Cleric as the game progressed, I just didn't want someone to start as a mid-level cleric) That's poor campaign design. If all this knowledge was shared by all players, the game would lose the elements of surprise, exploration and the "wow" moments when you discover that the princess is really a handmaiden of Lolth. As has been said earlier, that kind of surprise is not that important.
Lethanic 12-08-06, 09:14 PM	Huh? Wouldn't that mean having a Warlock in the party would in fact be a good plot hook? That's poor campaign design. As has been said earlier, that kind of surprise is not that important. SO you prefer the type of story where there are no secrets to figure out?
Matthew77 12-08-06, 11:40 PM	Huh? Wouldn't that mean having a Warlock in the party would in fact be a good plot hook? That's poor campaign design. As has been said earlier, that kind of surprise is not that important. Well. Now that you've indicated your dissatisfaction with my examples, do you have any thoughts about the actual concept I was interested in? You know, something that might actually contribute to the discussion instead of degenerate into quibbling over a specific example?
Comus 12-08-06, 11:55 PM	Well. Now that you've indicated your dissatisfaction with my examples, do you have any thoughts about the actual concept I was interested in? You know, something that might actually contribute to the discussion instead of degenerate into quibbling over a specific example? Just like to note that players would be justified in asking the DM for a reason behind a decision on a ruling. And that the DM would be totally justified in saying "I have a campaign-specific reason, but one that I do not want to reveal at this time." Not that anyone suggested otherwise. Just noting it for the record. If the PCs are not allowed to ask after rulings, or the DM is required to divulge the entire plot beforehand, then there is (in my opinion) a problem there.
HamHam 12-09-06, 12:03 AM	Well. Now that you've indicated your dissatisfaction with my examples, do you have any thoughts about the actual concept I was interested in? You know, something that might actually contribute to the discussion instead of degenerate into quibbling over a specific example? On the contrary, it's all about the specifics. For over 90% of these supposed times that the DM needs to go around banning things, there is actually going to be a more reasonable position to take that properly compromises between what the DM wants and what the player wants. And the rest of the time the problem will be underlying issues, not the banning or not banning of a certain thing.
Matthew77 12-09-06, 12:20 AM	On the contrary, it's all about the specifics. For over 90% of these supposed times that the DM needs to go around banning things, there is actually going to be a more reasonable position to take that properly compromises between what the DM wants and what the player wants. And the rest of the time the problem will be underlying issues, not the banning or not banning of a certain thing. Okay, then respond to the example that doesn't involve banning anything. My point (notice that it's bolded for emphasis in the post) is that the DM has knowledge the players don't. This justifies him making decisions without having to explain his reasoning to the players. A game in which the DM doesn't have knowledge the players don't, isn't a game I would enjoy.
Olskool 12-09-06, 01:47 AM	[QUOTE=HamHam;10863479 For over 90% of these supposed times that the DM needs to go around banning things, there is actually going to be a more reasonable position to take that properly compromises between what the DM wants and what the player wants. [/QUOTE] 90% huh? sounds indisputable to me. Next time I'm trying to prove a point, I think I'll pull some arbitrary statistics out of my butt too.
HamHam 12-09-06, 02:13 AM	Okay, then respond to the example that doesn't involve banning anything. My point (notice that it's bolded for emphasis in the post) is that the DM has knowledge the players don't. This justifies him making decisions without having to explain his reasoning to the players. The players also have knowledge the DM doesn't. The world is populated with characters. Those characters have then been assigned to various people to motivate. The fact that most of the time one person, the DM, has been assigned the vast majority of characters, is not a particularly profound point. A game in which the DM doesn't have knowledge the players don't, isn't a game I would enjoy. That's nice. Why?
Magnus_the_Mad 12-09-06, 02:42 AM	That's nice. Why? If the players know every thing that the DM knows about what is going to happen, npc motivations, and other details pertaining to the adventure then why bother roleplaying? What is so hard about leaving certain aspects of the game in the hands of one person to know and be in charge of? Sorry, but I find this whole idea of "group consensus" and "communal gaming" to be a load of crap. Really, do you play other games in the same fashion as this? If the same group you sit down to play D&D with decides to play "Clue" does everyone decide who did it, where and with what before you actually play? What I mean by this is does the group say "This time around lets say that Professor Plum should have done it in the library with the lead pipe. Sound good? Ok then lets play." What is the friggin point of even playing the game then? To just sit around and try to out guess everyone knowing full well that your knowledge of who has already done it will influence your decision making? That's just absurd. The same ideal holds true in D&D. If you already know who the BBEG is, what they are capable of, what their motivations are and how it all ties together in the end before you even roll one dice then that knowledge will certainly influence how you play your character and what decisions they will make. Player characters should not be omnipotent beings that know all. They may be extraordinary folks but a hard and fast rule is that there is always someone or something bigger, better, more intelligent, more powerful and more devious than the player characters. If this is not true, why bother adventuring? Communal gaming is the shell game, not the other way around. Matthew77 has it right. If you have superior knowledge of the game and the campaign material then that is justification for increased authority.
deadDMwalking 12-09-06, 03:10 AM	Some of the people on this thread have come out strongly against the position that DMs should not ban material. As someone who has banned material, I think that I can at least explain my reasons. I can also say that I have plenty of people to choose to play with, and while I can attempt to accomodate other play styles, in the end I can find people who like my style and I like DMing for. That makes a long-term campaign much more feasible. So, in no particular order - top reasons why I ban material from my game. 1) The Players are young or inexperienced and do not have a firm grasp of the rules. While some people might like having millions of options from the beginning, part of my job as DM is teaching the game to new players. Restricting options makes it easier to teach the essentials. After those are mastered, we can move into the more "extensive" optional rules. 1B) Young or inexperienced players are more likely to use pre-made classes as a crutch for their own creativity. I'd rather a player describe how they imagine a class would work (perhaps referring to a movie or literature character or archetype) and then we can decide how best to simulate that - whether through the core rules, or a few expansions, etc. Ideally we will create exactly what they want, rather than using a class/prestige class combination that has some neat features but isn't really what they were looking for. 2) Access to the books may be limited or restricted. I have a lot of books for D&D, but I do not have all of them. If you'd like to use a book that I don't have, I am very selective in what I allow. While some sources may not have any actual problem (for example, a spell full of necromancy spells with over 300 of them) as far as balance, etc (with the inclusion of this book a necromancer can do far more than any other specialist wizard - their is really no limitation for them). It might work if I did have full access to the book, but it also makes it much harder to design interesting NPCs that take full advantage of the optional rules we might be using in the game. 3) Flavor. This is a big one. If we're playing a low-magic game (a type that I like to play and run) I might limit certain races/classes. I talk with my players about it before hand, including why I want things a certain way. If a player wants to play a character that doesn't fit, I'm usually pretty firm about not allowing it. Flavor may be hard to quantify, but I think that it is really what one remembers from a campaign two or three years later. I don't like seeing a campaign spiral out of control (and by this, I mean, stop being enjoyable for both the DM and players) because things get too silly or anachronistic. 4) Rewards. Sometimes a player really wants something. Maybe it is best to let them earn it in the game. I don't really like players thinking that they're entitled to everything in the PHB and DMG at all times. If you're walking into a hamlet with 200 people, you can't expect to buy +3 adamantine greatswords by the case. Even in a major metropolis, there is a really good chance that a special weapon will not be available. When I say a character can't buy a unique or extremely rare item, I'm usually open to letting them find a way that they can earn that item - hopefully in the form of an adventure - and it will again make the special item even that much more special because it involved some extra work. 5) Balance reasons. The game is designed to work with a certain level of power, and challenges are based upon those expectations. Sometimes a race or class comes out and it is significantly better than any other option. Even if a player thinks it is a great option, usually they only seem to feel that way because of the greater than normal power. If you're willing to work with something that has the same "flavor" but is more balanced, most of the time they'll want something else that is equally "broken". To keep the game fun for everyone (including the DM) sometimes I feel I have to say no. 6) Because I say so. I know it doesn't usually sound like a good reason, but I'm not above using it. If the game is supposed to be fun for everyone (and that includes me) I might just say "not while I'm running the show." There are some things I don't like, and I don't want involved in my D&D. This may include races (Kender and Tinkergnomes) or classes (Frenzied Berserker), or alignments (CN). If someone can convince me that they can include one of these things in a game in a way that doesn't leave me contemplating ending my existence I'd change my mind. But, as a general rule, there are some things I hate with so much passion that they shouldn't be included in my games for the simple reason I'm not always a good enough person to avoid hurling lightning bolts down from the sky. Heck, if I were a D&D style god, I'd probably do that to the kenders for sport. They have evasion, right?
Magnus_the_Mad 12-09-06, 03:32 AM	6) Because I say so. I know it doesn't usually sound like a good reason, but I'm not above using it. If the game is supposed to be fun for everyone (and that includes me) I might just say "not while I'm running the show." There are some things I don't like, and I don't want involved in my D&D. This may include races (Kender and Tinkergnomes) or classes (Frenzied Berserker), or alignments (CN). If someone can convince me that they can include one of these things in a game in a way that doesn't leave me contemplating ending my existence I'd change my mind. But, as a general rule, there are some things I hate with so much passion that they shouldn't be included in my games for the simple reason I'm not always a good enough person to avoid hurling lightning bolts down from the sky. Heck, if I were a D&D style god, I'd probably do that to the kenders for sport. They have evasion, right? This is the one reason that some people on this thread are raising a fuss. They don't think it is valid or fair. A reason is a reason is a reason whatever it is. The DM is in no way obligated to give you one but if they can explain it without ruining the campaign then they should make an effort to do so. Players should not expect a reason for everything. If you can't have faith in the DM to begin with then don't bother playing with that DM.
Cold Napalm 12-09-06, 04:23 AM	This is the one reason that some people on this thread are raising a fuss. They don't think it is valid or fair. A reason is a reason is a reason whatever it is. The DM is in no way obligated to give you one but if they can explain it without ruining the campaign then they should make an effort to do so. Players should not expect a reason for everything. If you can't have faith in the DM to begin with then don't bother playing with that DM. And this is why I quit a game as soon as I hear "because I said so" from a DM. Those words, right there, breaks my trust in you and you obvious don't trust me to actually give me a reason. If it's a spoiler, too bad, give me a reason and TRUST ME not to meta game. If you as a DM can't trust me, they why the hell should I trust you? Trust is a two way street in the dark. Neither side should be certain of the outcome, but have faith that all involved will do their best to avoid a collision. Think of it this way, player and the DM are driving at each other in the dark. neither can see anything, but only thei high beams work. If they flick that light on however, there the blinding light WILL cause the other person swerve and fall off a cliff and die. So you either keep faith that the other person is keeping an ear out so they can hear you and turn when they need to and you do the same, or you flick that light on and be safe. The words because I said so is the DM flicking that light on.
Magnus_the_Mad 12-09-06, 04:52 AM	If it's a spoiler, too bad, give me a reason and TRUST ME not to meta game. And here, ladies and gentlemen, is a perfect example of the player who demands things of the DM that they have no reason to. I don't need to trust you to not metagame because I have the responsibility to keep that type of behavior in check. If you can't live without a reason then move along and let me get another player. Trust me, the game will not end because you need a reason to satiate your ego. I find it funny that certain posters believe that the whole damn group will just up and do a mass exodus if one player isn't happy. I've NEVER had that happen in any game I've been in. And this is why I quit a game as soon as I hear "because I said so" from a DM. Those words, right there, breaks my trust in you and you obvious don't trust me to actually give me a reason. If it's a spoiler, too bad, give me a reason and TRUST ME not to meta game. If you as a DM can't trust me, they why the hell should I trust you? Trust is a two way street in the dark. Neither side should be certain of the outcome, but have faith that all involved will do their best to avoid a collision. Think of it this way, player and the DM are driving at each other in the dark. neither can see anything, but only thei high beams work. If they flick that light on however, there the blinding light WILL cause the other person swerve and fall off a cliff and die. So you either keep faith that the other person is keeping an ear out so they can hear you and turn when they need to and you do the same, or you flick that light on and be safe. The words because I said so is the DM flicking that light on. People who react like this seem to be insecure about their gaming and usually have DMs that burn them too often. My aditude to a player with that type of mentality to my DMing would be "Sorry you can't trust me to do my job. I wish you would give it a shot but if you aren't going to give me the chance to show that I can do a good job then leave if you wish. I'm not going to argue or bicker over who needs to trust who more here. I've given you no reason to doubt me yet so being impulsive in your judgement is unfair and uncalled for." The DM doesn't need to trust his players as much as they need to trust him. Players can have a tendency to bend the rules or meta game and while there might not be ill intent at times, it does happen. Part of the DMs job is to curtail that type of behavior to keep it from ruining the game and spoiling everyone's fun. However, if a player just can't trust the DM to do their job well then they will have problems with that particular DM no matter what the DM says or does. The DM can make up their lack of trust in players (if any exsist at all) by simply arbitrating the rules clearly and in a fair and consistent manner. The players can make up their lack of trust in the DM (if any exsists at all) by allowing them to do their job. If either party fails to live up to their end of the agreement then the deal is off. The problem here isn't a DM needing to trust the players, it's parnoid players who can't let someone take them on a journey and just let go of their need to have a say in everything. Simply put, if you can't relax and play then don't play at all.
HamHam 12-09-06, 05:12 AM	If the players know every thing that the DM knows about what is going to happen, npc motivations, and other details pertaining to the adventure then why bother roleplaying? The actual act of roleplaying? Which none of that has anything to do with? Also, the things no one knows ahead of time, like how the dice will turn out. What is so hard about leaving certain aspects of the game in the hands of one person to know and be in charge of? There's a difference between leaving and taking. What you're doing is the later. Really, do you play other games in the same fashion as this? If the same group you sit down to play D&D with decides to play "Clue" does everyone decide who did it, where and with what before you actually play? What I mean by this is does the group say "This time around lets say that Professor Plum should have done it in the library with the lead pipe. Sound good? Ok then lets play." What is the friggin point of even playing the game then? To just sit around and try to out guess everyone knowing full well that your knowledge of who has already done it will influence your decision making? That's just absurd. That's a false comparision. Doing that in Clue would negate the point because that is the point. Doing that in DnD doesn't because that's not the point. If you already know who the BBEG is, what they are capable of, what their motivations are and how it all ties together in the end before you even roll one dice then that knowledge will certainly influence how you play your character and what decisions they will make. Not at all. Some of us can seperate IC and OOC just fine. And more importantly, OOC knowledge can also effect IC actions in a positive way. The DM doesn't need to trust his players as much as they need to trust him. Players can have a tendency to bend the rules or meta game and while there might not be ill intent at times, it does happen. Part of the DMs job is to curtail that type of behavior to keep it from ruining the game and spoiling everyone's fun. To put it simply, you're wrong. It is everyone's responsibility to keep in mind the greater good. If this is not the case, the DM really is nothing more than a babysitter, and that can't lead anywhere good.
Lethanic 12-09-06, 08:30 AM	The actual act of roleplaying? Which none of that has anything to do with? Also, the things no one knows ahead of time, like how the dice will turn out. There's a difference between leaving and taking. What you're doing is the later. That's a false comparision. Doing that in Clue would negate the point because that is the point. Doing that in DnD doesn't because that's not the point. Not at all. Some of us can seperate IC and OOC just fine. And more importantly, OOC knowledge can also effect IC actions in a positive way. To put it simply, you're wrong. It is everyone's responsibility to keep in mind the greater good. If this is not the case, the DM really is nothing more than a babysitter, and that can't lead anywhere good. What do you think _is_ the point of a D&D game, I might ask? I suppose your view works if all you view it as is a mechanical wargame. Other than that, not really. I'm sorry, but between the two, teh DM is responsible for a large portion of the world and sometimes they DO just 'have to say no' - just like an elected official isn't obligated to and frankly SHOULDN'T tell you everything he knows and everything that goes into his decisionmaking. SOmetimes there ARE things you are better off not knowing. And why is it not immature of a player to say "I HAVE to have this, screw the flavour of the campaign, screw your work!" If they are creative I am quite sure they are capable of coming up wiutgh other interestign characters> COmpromise isn;'t a one way stret, which is what seems to be implied by the "Communist gaming network" (Everyone is equal and makes all decisions equally) In that case. .why even bother to have a GM? JUst have a random stack of NPC's, hand them out to players, and have them all make up what comes at them and as a GM I'll just go have lunch. Enjoy your game of cops and robbers, because you remove what really makes it different from that.
Olskool 12-09-06, 10:33 AM	And this is why I quit a game as soon as I hear "because I said so" from a DM. . I think that's great. You leave so you're happy. And I'm sure the DM is delighted to have an immature disruptive player out of their campaign.Works great for everyone.
starfire311 12-09-06, 11:01 AM	And here, ladies and gentlemen, is a perfect example of the player who demands things of the DM that they have no reason to. I don't need to trust you to not metagame because I have the responsibility to keep that type of behavior in check. If you can't live without a reason then move along and let me get another player. Trust me, the game will not end because you need a reason to satiate your ego. I find it funny that certain posters believe that the whole damn group will just up and do a mass exodus if one player isn't happy. I've NEVER had that happen in any game I've been in. People who react like this seem to be insecure about their gaming and usually have DMs that burn them too often. My aditude to a player with that type of mentality to my DMing would be "Sorry you can't trust me to do my job. I wish you would give it a shot but if you aren't going to give me the chance to show that I can do a good job then leave if you wish. I'm not going to argue or bicker over who needs to trust who more here. I've given you no reason to doubt me yet so being impulsive in your judgement is unfair and uncalled for." The DM doesn't need to trust his players as much as they need to trust him. Players can have a tendency to bend the rules or meta game and while there might not be ill intent at times, it does happen. Part of the DMs job is to curtail that type of behavior to keep it from ruining the game and spoiling everyone's fun. However, if a player just can't trust the DM to do their job well then they will have problems with that particular DM no matter what the DM says or does. The DM can make up their lack of trust in players (if any exsist at all) by simply arbitrating the rules clearly and in a fair and consistent manner. The players can make up their lack of trust in the DM (if any exsists at all) by allowing them to do their job. If either party fails to live up to their end of the agreement then the deal is off. The problem here isn't a DM needing to trust the players, it's parnoid players who can't let someone take them on a journey and just let go of their need to have a say in everything. Simply put, if you can't relax and play then don't play at all. Here is the big problem with DMs like you, you Demand that the players trust you, but don't trust them and dont give them any reason to trust you other than hey, I am the DM i can do what I want, if you don't like it I am taking my ball and going home. If I was running a game with loads of undead, and I didnt want anyone to start as a cleric, I would say hey this game is gonna have a lot of undead in it and I dont want anyone to start as a cleric because it will negate many of the early challenges and I think you all will have less fun if there is a cleric in the group, I trust you all won't metagame with this knowledge.
pres_man 12-09-06, 11:02 AM	Superior access to knowledge is a justification for increased authority. Anyone in the "run the game as a consensus" camp want to address the issue of inequity of knowledge? Well not sure I would put myself in the "run the game as a consensus" camp, mainly because I think the "DM is god" camp have exaggerated the views of it (yes, I am exagerrating the general views of the other side as well ;) ). But heck, I will give it a shot. It depends on what that knowledge is pertaining to does it? If the DM knows that the main group of bad guys are going to be Warlocks, does that mean that all Warlocks are bad guys? That kind of reasoning is similiar to saying because all squares are rectangles, then all rectangles are squares. I hope you see the flaw with that. Frankly, it seems like a lot of DMs fall into the error that Socrates ran into. Socrates was told by the Oracle of Delphi that he was the smartest man in the world. He knew this was wrong, so he went around talked to others, and found all of these other people though knowledgable in their field, assumed that knowledge extended over into areas which they were ignorant of. He finally came to the conclusion that he was the smartest man, not because he knew everything, but because he realized he didn't know everything. Many DMs fall into the same error as those other people did, they assume because they know things about the setting that means they know what is best for the game. The setting is not the game, the setting is the setting for the game. The game is about the PCs not the setting. Here is a question, assuming the DM writes a story (I personally hate that idea, but whatever). Is the DM writing the story as the game goes on, or has the DM already written the story before the game starts? If it is the latter then, I would say the DM is playing a limited type of game, one heavy on the railroad.
deadDMwalking 12-09-06, 11:29 AM	As a DM that has had many players in many types of games, I've had my share of disruptive players. I do try to make the fun enjoyable for the entire group. Sometimes, that doesn't work for one or more people. When that happens, I have a couple of choices. The first is that I can bend over backward to give the disruptive player what they want. The often causes other players I like and enjoy having in my game to decide to leave. The game isn't fun for them if it is constantly being ruined by another player. I won't do that anymore. The second is to focus on providing something the group, as a whole, wants. If that causes the disruptive player to leave, I'm fine with that. Even if someone is my friend, I can do things other than D&D with them. Or they can run a campaign that fits their ideals. Usually, no offense is generated if we're mature enough to know that we like different kinds of games, so we should play different style of games. I don't think the DM is god. While a DM CAN do things that a player can't, there are many things they shouldn't do. However, if you're looking at what makes a good DM, I'd say the following are important. 1) Generally gives players a free for everything specific to the character after having discussed the nature of the campaign and laid out and ground rules (absence of classes, etc). 2) Generally has a sound knowledge of the mechanics of D&D. An experienced player may want to argue if their character is killed because an invisible rogue gets a full attack (instead of a standard action) before initiative is rolled. Since the DM adjudicates the action, they must be pretty good about following the rules - or letting the players know why they are not following the rules. However, for me it is enough if the DM says "I know the rule usually works that way. There is a reason it is different." I do accept that the DM has more knowledge than I do. 3) Keeps the pace of the game going well. This does not mean railroading, but keeps the group moving if they do seem to get stuck. 4) Tries to make the game fun for everyone. 5) Takes the time to have something prepared so we have something to do each time we go to play. I don't want to run into the 4th wall. Those are the only things I'm really looking for in a DM. If they don't have all the traits, I can definitely "help" them if they need it. If they don't want help despite their failing in what I think is a critical area, I may leave the game. Players have a different set of obligations. These involve running a character, playing by the rules, cooperating with the party, and trying to be engaged. There are a number of other obligations that are split in some way between the players and the DM. In one example the DM might be 100% responsible for these. In another, the group might contribute equally. Often the players will give a rough idea of one of these things, and the DM will flesh it out. This includes cast of characters (NPCs) and the setting. Some of this can be created by players in their backstory (my father was Caridan the Red, a bandit leader who disappeared 20 years ago while exploring an ancient tomb) - while it creates the person and place, it doesn't lead to any details. The DM might talk to the player and run with it, or he might ask the player to give stats for Caridan. Neither way is inherently wrong. However, most of the games I've been involved with, for a number of reasons, most of the NPCs and world building come from the DM. And I think that is usually for the best.
pres_man 12-09-06, 12:45 PM	A DM has more authority over decisions than the players because he has more knowledge. (knowledge here doesn't mean rules knowledge or out-of-game skills. I mean knowledge of the setting, knowledge of the NPC's plans, knowledge of the BBEG's plans and weaknesses, etc.) So you would agree that at the very least, things that are rules knowledge and out-of-game skills related are within the control of the entire group, not merely the DM. Examples: Does this NPC help the party? (the DM knows that he is secretly a spy for the BBEG). Of course, because it is the DM's responsibility to roleplaying the NPCs, it is not appropriate for the players to tell the DM how a particular NPC is going to react. Just as it is not appropriate for a DM to tell a player how their PC is going to react in a given situation. If all this knowledge was shared by all players, the game would lose the elements of surprise, exploration and the "wow" moments when you discover that the princess is really a handmaiden of Lolth. Ok, so let's take this concept to the next level. A group of five people, all of which have not only DMed, but have DMed the exact module they are getting ready to play. Is it impossible for them to have fun doing this? The answer is, of course not, they certainly still can have fun despite having full knowledge of not only the monsters in general but also these specific versions. The problem is people see that they are going to have a different type of fun then some newbie who has never played D&D before let alone this module, and they think different = less. No different doesn't equal less, it means different. If the players know every thing that the DM knows about what is going to happen, npc motivations, and other details pertaining to the adventure then why bother roleplaying? You are claiming the DM knows what is going to happen? To me that is a poor example of a DM, a DM should be letting things evolve from the PCs actions/inactions, not forcing a set of consequences irregardless of the PCs' behavouir. Why roleplay if you know the specifics of the setting (see my module example above), because it is about how these specific PCs interact with the setting and with each other, that is the roleplaying. Figuring out if you pull the blue switch or the red switch isn't roleplaying it is solving a puzzle (which maybe done in a roleplaying fashion, but is not itself roleplaying). What is so hard about leaving certain aspects of the game in the hands of one person to know and be in charge of? Sorry, but I find this whole idea of "group consensus" and "communal gaming" to be a load of crap. It is not so hard, the question is, is it fun to give one person total authority without any ability to question any of the decisions made by that person, especially decisions about things that directly effect the individual players (classes, races, feats, etc). Some of the people on this thread have come out strongly against the position that DMs should not ban material on a whim. Fixed it for you (in red). 1) The Players are young or inexperienced and do not have a firm grasp of the rules. Again, this is working outside of the assumption that both the DM and the players are competent. Of course if some are newbies (player or DM), there should be a much smaller rule set used. 1B) Young or inexperienced players are more likely to use pre-made classes as a crutch for their own creativity. I would say that it is good to show new players (and for new DMs to try) how to make a given concept with a smaller rule set. This will make them appreciate the expanded rule set better because they will have this experience of "I did it but it was clunky, oh it works a lot smoother using this other class." 2) Access to the books may be limited or restricted. Indeed there is some validiate to such a position, but it can also lead to an extreme. Perhaps a player is willing to lone a DM a text the DM does not have in order to decide whether the material is appropriate (or more accurately whether the DM is comfortable continuing in his role with said material in play). But the DM is too lazy to read the material and just says he won't play with it. Access is the real issue, not ownership of a book. It shouldn't make any difference if a DM owns it or a player does, as long as all have (reasonable) access to it. 3) Flavor. This is a big one. Aye, but this is something that should be address prior to the game starting, not changed on a whim as the game evolves. It also is important with this that the DM avoids hypocracy (unlike the dinner party example). 4) Rewards. Sometimes a player really wants something. Maybe it is best to let them earn it in the game. Yes and no. Again this comes down to what the group finds enjoyable and if it was agreed on at the beginning. I character that has "earned" enough money to purchase a particular weapon should not have to do an equal amount of work to "earn" the right to buy it. If a DM didn't want to give them items, don't give them money either (an often big mistake low-magic DMs make). But certainly a DM should be comfortable saying, "Well looking at the wealth guidelines in the DMG, I would say that item is not available in this setting. Though with some gathering of info and research you might learn where one might be obtained." 5) Balance reasons. The game is designed to work with a certain level of power, and challenges are based upon those expectations. True enough, another big mistake low-magic DMs often make. But let us be careful on saying just because one character is better than some others, that makes that character "unbalanced". Sometimes people often gimp their character because they think it will be fun. A player in game where everybody else decides to play half-elf bards (weakest core race and class), shouldn't be gimped because of the choices of the others. 6) Because I say so. But reading your explanation, we see it isn't "because you say so." What you actually mean is, "because I will no longer be able to have fun DMing with it in the game." Nothing wrong with that, as long as it is true. Now if it might require you to adjust the setting a bit or tweak the campaign ideas a bit, I would say that is a kind of weak reason (basically claiming you can't have fun because you are too lazy to change anything). On the other hand, I totally understand saying, "I will not DM with that stuff present because I will not enjoy the game." I do that, for example, I will not DM for an evil party. Frankly I don't need to spend my time so people can get a thrill from raping, murdering, pillaging in a game. I don't feel the need to inflict that upon myself. Does this mean I am controling, only in so much as I am controling myself.
crustaceomutoid 12-09-06, 01:21 PM	The world you build serves the game. I’m going to repeat that… the world you build serves the game. Some DM’s mistakenly come to believe it is the other way around. They work night after night spending untold hours creating their master pieces. They get emotionally attached, rightfully so, to what they have worked so hard to bring to life. There is nothing wrong with this, however, if during the middle of it all the players for some reason decide they are no longer interested and try to exit stage left, the DM may attempt to railroad them back into what he has planned in his notes. This is a horrendous error on the part of the DM and beheads what I believe to be the true spirit of the game, which is choice. In my campaign there is a clear understanding between me and my players. If at any point they are unhappy with what is happening in the game world, they can drop everything and head off in a new direction of their choosing. This could result in much of my work for their current setting was for not and gets wasted. However, I would rather take this approach than pierce all my players noses with a bull ring and lead them around my world. Besides, I have found some of it can be creatively recycled back into the game without anyone ever being the wiser. Remember, none of what you have built actually becomes part of the game unless it happens at the table on game night. Until then it is simply a possibility that should always take a back seat to good creative spontaneity. If you want to be a novelist, go write a book. However, if you want to DM, structure your world using choice as the glue that holds it all together. This, as I believe it, ensures what the title of this thread is all about, “Balance, the roles of the DM, and the authority of the office.”
Lethanic 12-09-06, 01:32 PM	The world you build serves the game. I’m going to repeat that… the world you build serves the game. Some DM’s mistakenly come to believe it is the other way around. They work night after night spending untold hours creating their master pieces. They get emotionally attached, rightfully so, to what they have worked so hard to bring to life. There is nothing wrong with this, however, if during the middle of it all the players for some reason decide they are no longer interested and try to exit stage left, the DM may attempt to railroad them back into what he has planned in his notes. This is a horrendous error on the part of the DM and beheads what I believe to be the true spirit of the game, which is choice. In my campaign there is a clear understanding between me and my players. If at any point they are unhappy with what is happening in the game world, they can drop everything and head off in a new direction of their choosing. This could result in much of my work for their current setting was for not and gets wasted. However, I would rather take this approach than pierce all my players noses with a bull ring and lead them around my world. Besides, I have found some of it can be creatively recycled back into the game without anyone ever being the wiser. Remember, none of what you have built actually becomes part of the game unless it happens at the table on game night. Until then it is simply a possibility that should always take a back seat to good creative spontaneity. If you want to be a novelist, go write a book. However, if you want to DM, structure your world using choice as the glue that holds it all together. This, as I believe it, ensures what the title of this thread is all about, “Balance, the roles of the DM, and the authority of the office.” Yes, but the world ALSO sets the PARAMETERS of the game. What is and is not possible. What I really don't get seems to be the attitude that it is ALWAYS the DM that should adjust, and never the player. Why does the PLAYER not have some obligation to try to meet the DM halfway, or adjust their concepts to fit the world? Why is it not, in fact, a sign of a lack of maturity in the player thaqt they HAVE to have something that is proscribed in the setting when there are an infinite amount of things that can be played WITHIN? Why is it proper for THEM to shoehorn in THEIR Idea?
a_psh 12-09-06, 01:38 PM	Does this NPC help the party? (the DM knows that he is secretly a spy for the BBEG).Well, part of the "everyone gets to play with the toys" assumption is that everyone, in fact, gets to play with the toys. That includes the GM. Like I said before, there's nothing wrong with "I've got a cool idea. Let me take over this particular element for a while." If the presumption is that the GM's the only one who can express his ideas in this way, though, everyone else's creativity is being thrown out the window or, at best, relegated to a big game of "What if?" rather than play itself. It's the difference between sitting back and thinking "I could do it better" and stepping up and giving your idea to everyone to enjoy and improve upon. I don't care if you're the player or the GM; if you have something awesome to say, say it! Can I play a Warlock? (the DM knows that a cabal of demon-worshippers recruits or kills any child that exhibits eldritch powers, and this group will be the main obstacle to the PCs so he doesn't want to reveal any information about the cult OOG.)Why? How is that a critical part of the big reveal, in this case? Is it important that the fact that they're warlocks be all vague and mysterious, too? If the players had a vague idea what was happening, then one of them could make a pretty cool warlock PC, couldn't he? Either a guy who grew up with them but then turned his back on the cabal, becoming a tormented heretic seeking to bring down their order, or a guy who, as a kid, somehow "slipped through the cracks" and has grown up as a virtuous person rather than one of them? Both of those are fairly interesting backgrounds and tie the character into the world and overall story fairly well. Indeed, I'd hazard to say that they're better than just making the secret cabal of warlocks that has nothing to do with the PCs, because now there is a relationship there to explore. Now, I'm not saying everyone should always know every little detail -- if anything, you should be ready to make up all the details and the big, important things, too, right on the spot -- but all the situations you describe seem to be very much about being overprotective about these revelations. It's better to let a bit bleed through so that the players have set it up so that the big reveal means something than to just focus everything on the big reveal. How long does that "wow" factor last? If it's just "Oh, I get it, they're an evil cabal or warlocks... Wow! Okay, let's go kill them or something," is that fleeting few seconds worth making something irrelevant and thematically inaccessible? Also: out-of-character isn't out-of-game. If anything, all that stuff you prepped while sitting alone in your house without any input from anyone else is much more out-of-game than anything you actually do at the table. I once ran a campaign based around swarms of low-level undead. I told my players "no clerics " without giving them a reason, because I didn't want to spoil the surprise of the campaign set-up. Maybe they assumed I just thought Clerics were an unbalanced class, maybe they thought it was just my whim. Once the campaign started they realized why I made that decision, and didn't let them discuss it first. (digression, I let them take levels of Cleric as the game progressed, I just didn't want someone to start as a mid-level cleric)So you're not even telling them what the game is about, essentially? Do they at least know there's going to be a twist of some sort? I ask because, well, to be honest, if I built a character to be a dashing pirate or a tricky enchanter or a would-be Robin Hood or the tormented scion of a noble house and then a zombie movie dropped onto my head just out of the blue, the thing that would make the most sense both in and out of character would be to run far, far away, to a country not afflicted with zombie problems, where I could interact with people again. I could fight that urge, sure, but, if you pitched the theme of a game as X and then it was veering towards Y, I'd be trying to bring the theme back to X again, because that's the theme we were developing together before you preempted it. If anything, I'd have more fun making a character I knew was gonna be in a zombie movie rather than being surprised, because I could then work towards the moment of revelation being narratively interesting. Is the element of surprise worth it, in that case? If all this knowledge was shared by all players, the game would lose the elements of surprise, exploration and the "wow" moments when you discover that the princess is really a handmaiden of Lolth.If everything is prewritten by the GM, the game loses all elements of actual story-building and thematic exploration. In-game facts are fleeting if they don't tie in to the shared story in a meaningful way. A moment when everyone's contributions to the story click and it all works together makes for a much bigger "wow" than just finding out about a detail that the GM pre-wrote three weeks ago. And the GM gets to be in on that "wow," too.
Magnus_the_Mad 12-09-06, 01:42 PM	The actual act of roleplaying? Which none of that has anything to do with? Also, the things no one knows ahead of time, like how the dice will turn out. So you play D&D why? There's a difference between leaving and taking. What you're doing is the later. I'm not doing either. You just interpret it as that. That's a false comparision. Doing that in Clue would negate the point because that is the point. Doing that in DnD doesn't because that's not the point. It's not a false comparison by a mile. Knowing the outcome in any game beforehand ruins the aspect of the challenge and the fun factor. I suppose you have a point to make somewhere in your posts beside telling people how wrong they are while not making good counterpoints. What, then, is the point of D&D according to you? Not at all. Some of us can seperate IC and OOC just fine. And more importantly, OOC knowledge can also effect IC actions in a positive way. OOC knowledge should not have any effect on your character in advantageous ways. I would even go so far as to say that it shouldn't have an effect on your character in disadventageous ways either. If you use it as an advantage (for example, knowing the monster's weaknesses even though your character hasn't encountered it before) that's metagaming and should not be allowed. To put it simply, you're wrong. It is everyone's responsibility to keep in mind the greater good. If this is not the case, the DM really is nothing more than a babysitter, and that can't lead anywhere good. To put it simply, it's your opinion and I think YOU are wrong. To call others wrong because of a difference of opinion is egotistical and arrogant of you. Of course it's everyone responsibility to keep in mind the greater good but what happens when that little bit of good advice starts to slip? Then my example makes sense. We don't live in a perfect world so your perfect world examples don't make for practical discussion.
Magnus_the_Mad 12-09-06, 01:43 PM	Yes, but the world ALSO sets the PARAMETERS of the game. What is and is not possible. What I really don't get seems to be the attitude that it is ALWAYS the DM that should adjust, and never the player. Why does the PLAYER not have some obligation to try to meet the DM halfway, or adjust their concepts to fit the world? Why is it not, in fact, a sign of a lack of maturity in the player thaqt they HAVE to have something that is proscribed in the setting when there are an infinite amount of things that can be played WITHIN? Why is it proper for THEM to shoehorn in THEIR Idea? QFT!
Magnus_the_Mad 12-09-06, 01:49 PM	You are claiming the DM knows what is going to happen? To me that is a poor example of a DM, a DM should be letting things evolve from the PCs actions/inactions, not forcing a set of consequences irregardless of the PCs' behavouir. Why roleplay if you know the specifics of the setting (see my module example above), because it is about how these specific PCs interact with the setting and with each other, that is the roleplaying. Figuring out if [you pull the blue switch or the red switch isn't roleplaying it is solving a puzzle (which maybe done in a roleplaying fashion, but is not itself roleplaying). Wow, way to miss the point of that statement. Yes, as a matter of fact I make sure to pass out loaded dice to all my players beforehand so that I knwo exactly every possible outcome of every roll ahead of time /endsarcasm. Why roleplay if you know the specifics of the setting? Umm, you ever play in FR or Eberron? Lots of specifics going on there that have already been determined. It is not so hard, the question is, is it fun to give one person total authority without any ability to question any of the decisions made by that person, especially decisions about things that directly effect the individual players (classes, races, feats, etc). Who mentioned total authority here? Not I. Your question may be what you have posted above but that was not my question. No, my question was not "is it fun to give one person total authority", my question was basically "what is wrong with entrusting someone with some authority to run things without endless demands"?
Magnus_the_Mad 12-09-06, 01:51 PM	Here is the big problem with DMs like you, you Demand that the players trust you, but don't trust them and dont give them any reason to trust you other than hey, I am the DM i can do what I want, if you don't like it I am taking my ball and going home. It's not a problem as far as I see it. And I'm not the one who will be going home, you will. Re-read the post. It went over your head apparently.
crustaceomutoid 12-09-06, 01:57 PM	True balance will always come from a group that understands what it means to compromise. That goes for both DM's and Players alike. All relationships from marriage to D&D groups will always benefit from this. Simple and true fact.
Magnus_the_Mad 12-09-06, 02:06 PM	True balance will always come from a group that understands what it means to compromise. That goes for both DM's and Players alike. All relationships from marriage to D&D groups will always benefit from this. Simple and true fact. Yes it is!
Lethanic 12-09-06, 02:10 PM	To expand, my players DO have a good bit of authority over the game setting. Its called PC actions, and it occurs in character. THier actions effect the setting, sometimes in expansive ways. What they do might make kingdoms fall or new ones rise. The world will react to them, and its my job to make sure the world reacts consistantly and fairly. But it ISN'T my job to tell them all the world's secrets. Some of them they just have to find out for themselves.
HamHam 12-09-06, 02:18 PM	It's not a false comparison by a mile. Knowing the outcome in any game beforehand ruins the aspect of the challenge and the fun factor. But the outcome of DnD is not about finding out who's the BBEG of the week. In certain limiting circumstances, it might be useful to limit the flow of information for a specific purpose. For example, if the session was going to be a murder mystery, then it would be necessary in that case to limit information because you've set the gathering of information as the goal of the session. However, a DnD campaign as a whole is not that way most of the time. When it is that way, it's a specific exception that warrents additional measures beyond normal. What, then, is the point of D&D according to you? Storytelling. OOC knowledge should not have any effect on your character in advantageous ways. I would even go so far as to say that it shouldn't have an effect on your character in disadventageous ways either. It's not about advantage or disadvantage. To put it simply, it's your opinion and I think YOU are wrong. To call others wrong because of a difference of opinion is egotistical and arrogant of you. Pot meet kettle?
Lethanic 12-09-06, 02:27 PM	SO a star wars campaign, for example, would have been MUCH better knowing from the beginning who the emperor really was> We should have just been flat out told at the beginning of "A new Hope" that Vader was Luke's father. Name a good movie or book that doesn't include "Discovering things unknown' in it.
pres_man 12-09-06, 03:06 PM	What I really don't get seems to be the attitude that it is ALWAYS the DM that should adjust, and never the player. Why does the PLAYER not have some obligation to try to meet the DM halfway, or adjust their concepts to fit the world? Why is it not, in fact, a sign of a lack of maturity in the player thaqt they HAVE to have something that is proscribed in the setting when there are an infinite amount of things that can be played WITHIN? Why is it proper for THEM to shoehorn in THEIR Idea? And I don't get where you are getting that idea. Nobody has said that a DM has to change anything based on the views of ONE player. One player has no more power than the DM. A player that is acting like a jerk, e.g. not making any attempt to compromise, is a jerk, and should be treat as such. Yet so should a DM that is acting like a jerk, e.g. not making any attempt to compromise. Being a jerk is being a jerk, irregardless of who is doing it. The fact that a person takes on the role of being the DM does not make their jerk-like actions any less jerk-like.
HamHam 12-09-06, 03:12 PM	SO a star wars campaign, for example, would have been MUCH better knowing from the beginning who the emperor really was> We should have just been flat out told at the beginning of "A new Hope" that Vader was Luke's father. Name a good movie or book that doesn't include "Discovering things unknown' in it. DnD games are not movies or books. Attempting to make them like movies or books is called railroading and it's bad. If Star Wars was a D&D campaign, Luke's player would have to have been consulted about the whole Vader thing, because that's not the sort of thing a DM can just do.
Magnus_the_Mad 12-09-06, 03:18 PM	DnD games are not movies or books. Attempting to make them like movies or books is called railroading and it's bad. I have to take up issue with this one rediculous statement. Published adventures have been around since the beginning. Are you telling me that it's been wrong all along? Sounds like you and A-psh come from the same gene pool. Published adventures offer many choices for the most part and are not railroading in the least. People who rationalize like this love playing games where everything is winged and made up as the game goes along. Is this wrong? No. Is it the whole intent of D&D? NO! Play it how you wish but for the love of god don't ever call a written adventure railroading. You don't comprehend what that statement means if you think this way. If Star Wars was a D&D campaign, Luke's player would have to have been consulted about the whole Vader thing, because that's not the sort of thing a DM can just do. Bullcrap to the Nth degree. Luke had no idea about Vader until later in life. What the heck do you mean that Luke's player would have to be consulted? Why? So what you are saying is that the DM is not allowed to impose anything upon a player unless that player is consulted beforehand? Wow, you must play some really boring games then.
Magnus_the_Mad 12-09-06, 03:20 PM	Pot meet kettle? :rolleyes: And your point being? Stoop to levels like this and you need to expect the same in return. Just playing the little game you are.
Lethanic 12-09-06, 03:23 PM	DnD games are not movies or books. Attempting to make them like movies or books is called railroading and it's bad. If Star Wars was a D&D campaign, Luke's player would have to have been consulted about the whole Vader thing, because that's not the sort of thing a DM can just do. Hmm> My players must be masochists them, because I keep throwqing all sorts of things like that at them and they want more. If the player had created a character and said "My parents adopted me, I don't know who my real parents are" then you as a DM woudl have every 'right' to make their parents whomever the hell you wanted to.
Lethanic 12-09-06, 03:25 PM	And I don't get where you are getting that idea. Nobody has said that a DM has to change anything based on the views of ONE player. One player has no more power than the DM. A player that is acting like a jerk, e.g. not making any attempt to compromise, is a jerk, and should be treat as such. Yet so should a DM that is acting like a jerk, e.g. not making any attempt to compromise. Being a jerk is being a jerk, irregardless of who is doing it. The fact that a person takes on the role of being the DM does not make their jerk-like actions any less jerk-like. Actually, when tyhey are DECIDED ON as GM, they are TACITLY given certain story authority that the PLAYERS don't have> If another PLAYER whated that story authority THEY could have volubnteered to do the work coming with DMing. They didn't. THey don't have that authority. They want it, come up with their own campaign, get players for it.
Comus 12-09-06, 03:29 PM	DnD games are not movies or books. Attempting to make them like movies or books is called railroading and it's bad. If Star Wars was a D&D campaign, Luke's player would have to have been consulted about the whole Vader thing, because that's not the sort of thing a DM can just do. Why? I'm not saying you're wrong, but I'd like to hear an expanded version of your reasons. I think a DnD game can have an epic, overarching story - without railroading the players. I also think a DM should be able to use a character's backstory to make plot hooks.
Magnus_the_Mad 12-09-06, 03:38 PM	Why? I'm not saying you're wrong, but I'd like to hear an expanded version of your reasons. I think a DnD game can have an epic, overarching story - without railroading the players. I also think a DM should be able to use a character's backstory to make plot hooks. Exactly. Point well made.
HamHam 12-09-06, 04:36 PM	Why? I'm not saying you're wrong, but I'd like to hear an expanded version of your reasons. I think a DnD game can have an epic, overarching story - without railroading the players. A game can have epic, overarching things going on. The players can also simply ignore these things. Thus, no one person, not even DM, can dictate where the story will go. I also think a DM should be able to use a character's backstory to make plot hooks. Not without prior player consent. Especially not when it involves something that fundamentally changes the character. There's a significant difference between "your hometown is under attack from goblins" and "your father was actually a demon". If the player had created a character and said "My parents adopted me, I don't know who my real parents are" then you as a DM woudl have every 'right' to make their parents whomever the hell you wanted to. That counts as prior player consent. If, on the other hand, the player had created a character and said "My parents adopted me, my real parents are dead." the DM couldn't be like "Nah, they're not really dead!" without getting permission to do so from the player. And if the player had created a character and said "My parents adopeted me, and while the character doesn't know this his real parents were imprisoned in another dimension by an evil wizard (or something)" the DM would be obligated to work that into the campaign.
Comus 12-09-06, 04:59 PM	A game can have epic, overarching things going on. The players can also simply ignore these things. Thus, no one person, not even DM, can dictate where the story will go. That's true. The characters can certainly close their eyes and cover their ears and ignore the goings-on in the world. In a Call of Cthulhu campaign, this would in fact be the safest thing to do. But just because they don't participate doesn't mean they can't be affected by it. As an example, let's say the DM puts out a plot hook that would have led to the characters stopping a war between their kingdom and another nation. The characters take the hook, then decide to bail on it halfway through, for whatever reason (maybe a character dies, or they want to follow up on something else, or they decide to explore the Underdark, etc.). Next time they get to town, they find it's under new management, and if they're famous enough, they might be wanted men. Of course, they may simply not care that their country has fallen. Maybe they won't join a resistance group, and they'll just kill the people coming after them without finding out the King is using the last of his resources to track down the people that abandoned his land. Not without prior player consent. Especially not when it involves something that fundamentally changes the character. There's a significant difference between "your hometown is under attack from goblins" and "your father was actually a demon". If you have mature players, it shouldn't be a problem. That counts as prior player consent. If, on the other hand, the player had created a character and said "My parents adopted me, my real parents are dead." the DM couldn't be like "Nah, they're not really dead!" without getting permission to do so from the player. And if the player had created a character and said "My parents adopeted me, and while the character doesn't know this his real parents were imprisoned in another dimension by an evil wizard (or something)" the DM would be obligated to work that into the campaign. Why couldn't the DM say they aren't dead? Even if the character saw them die, and buried them with his own hands, there's so much ressurection and undead creation floating around D&D that it's almost a wonder he hasn't brought them back yet himself. A villian could raise them as death knights or vampires or something. Heck, they could just become Outsiders and visit the player when he casts a summon spell!
CharlieRock 12-09-06, 05:08 PM	But the outcome of DnD is not about finding out who's the BBEG of the week. Dang! That's what I did for most of my games. I didn't know I was doing it wrong. :(
CharlieRock 12-09-06, 05:16 PM	A game can have epic, overarching things going on. The players can also simply ignore these things. Thus, no one person, not even DM, can dictate where the story will go. ... "My parents adopeted me, and while the character doesn't know this his real parents were imprisoned in another dimension by an evil wizard (or something)" the DM would be obligated to work that into the campaign. So, basically you just went back on yourself. By stating that one person does not dictate where the story will go, but obligating the DM to incorporate something that one person came up with into the campaign. I think you used obligated too lightly, maybe encouraged would have been better. One time, a player had a monk character. I accidently overran his home town and knocked off his monastery (making him the sole surviving member of the order). Didn't have prior consent at all. He just placed it in a bad spot on the map. It just led to a grand ol' epic story of revenge and how a monk started a new monastery.
HamHam 12-09-06, 05:18 PM	Why couldn't the DM say they aren't dead? Because it amounts to "A bolt of lighting comes down from the sky. Your character is dead. No save." Luke who's father was killed by Vader and Luke who's father is Vader are two completely different characters, even though they may have the same exact mechanical stats. Just like a DM has no business in deciding what levels, feats, etc the PC has, he also has no business in deciding something that important to who the PC is. Even if the character saw them die, and buried them with his own hands, there's so much ressurection and undead creation floating around D&D that it's almost a wonder he hasn't brought them back yet himself. That's a problem with the magic system more than anything. A villian could raise them as death knights or vampires or something. You can't turn people who are already dead into vampires. And actual undead-creation doesn't do anything to the souls the bodies used to belong, iirc, so at best he might effectively desecrate their remains by turning them into skeletons or something. While that might **** the PC off a good bit, it's not that big a deal. Heck, they could just become Outsiders and visit the player when he casts a summon spell! That means they're still dead. So, basically you just went back on yourself. By stating that one person does not dictate where the story will go, but obligating the DM to incorporate something that one person came up with into the campaign. Not at all. The other PCs could simply not go along with helping to fight the wizard, or whatever. The DM also had plenty of details to fill in as they see fit.
Olskool 12-09-06, 05:35 PM	You know, everyone insisting that Players have the right to come up with their own backstories really grinds my gears. Players should'nt know anything about their character"s history that the DM has'nt told them. Players can invent their characters personalities, but their backgrounds are entirely in the hands of the DM. The very idea that players should have a say about their character before they start playing is repellant and more than slightly off putting to me.
Magnus_the_Mad 12-09-06, 05:35 PM	Because it amounts to "A bolt of lighting comes down from the sky. Your character is dead. No save." Luke who's father was killed by Vader and Luke who's father is Vader are two completely different characters, even though they may have the same exact mechanical stats. Just like a DM has no business in deciding what levels, feats, etc the PC has, he also has no business in deciding something that important to who the PC is. Then I guess the PC had better not leave any loose ends concerning their character if they don't want the DM to use them as plot hooks. I should point out that as a DM, I will let the player know that if there are good plot hooks in their back story then I may or may not use them in the future as story ideas concerning their character. What's the point of creating a character background with those types of loose ends if they are never to be explored or used in any way? My advice, don't leave it undone if you don't want it comming back on you for good or ill. Vader is the same person no matter what the player character would be led to believe. If you think the sky is blue but are told it's actually red it doesn't matter in the fact that it is still the sky!! Furthermore, if you were truly a good DM you would know your players well enough to know who wouldn't mind this type of story development concerning their characters and who would mind it. That's a problem with the magic system more than anything. Problem with the magic system? How so? I call that possibilities. You know, those choices that folks have been rallying so much about in this thread. Does this mean that the players should have unlimited choices but the DM should not? Kinda one sided don't you think?
CharlieRock 12-09-06, 05:38 PM	It could be said that making the PCs family is just inviting bad things to happen to them. It's almost like a dare to. :evillaugh
Magnus_the_Mad 12-09-06, 05:40 PM	You know, everyone insisting that Players have the right to come up with their own backstories really grinds my gears. Players should'nt know anything about their character"s history that the DM has'nt told them. Players can invent their characters personalities, but their backgrounds are entirely in the hands of the DM. The very idea that players should have a say about their character before they start playing is repellant and more than slightly off putting to me. Well, I think that certain things regarding your character should be in your hands to decide (who your parents are, where you hail from, how you got your training in your class, your mentality on certain things, etc.) otherwise you will not have a vested interest in the character you are playing other than to exsist and explore. But I do agree wholeheartedly with you that players should not be able to completely control their destiny how they see fit. Certain things your players say and do will affect those around them and they may not have say on what that will be. The DM tailors the game based on decisions the players make but the players do not have autonomous control over the weather, the history, the people and the world in general.
Lethanic 12-09-06, 05:41 PM	You know, everyone insisting that Players have the right to come up with their own backstories really grinds my gears. Players should'nt know anything about their character"s history that the DM has'nt told them. Players can invent their characters personalities, but their backgrounds are entirely in the hands of the DM. The very idea that players should have a say about their character before they start playing is repellant and more than slightly off putting to me. HAving "A say' and the ONLY, exclusive, and incontestable say are vastly different things.
Lethanic 12-09-06, 05:44 PM	Well, I think that certain things regarding your character should be in your hands to decide (who your parents are, where you hail from, how you got your training in your class, your mentality on certain things, etc.) otherwise you will not have a vested interest in the character you are playing other than to exsist and explore. But I do agree wholeheartedly with you that players should not be able to completely control their destiny how they see fit. Certain things your players say and do will affect those around them and they may not have say on what that will be. The DM tailors the game based on decisions the players make but the players do not have autonomous control over the weather, the history, the people and the world in general. THe player controls who his relations and the like ARE not who they BECOME.
CharlieRock 12-09-06, 05:45 PM	You know, everyone insisting that Players have the right to come up with their own backstories really grinds my gears. Players should'nt know anything about their character"s history that the DM has'nt told them. Players can invent their characters personalities, but their backgrounds are entirely in the hands of the DM. The very idea that players should have a say about their character before they start playing is repellant and more than slightly off putting to me. *Looks at poster's name after reading this post* Well, there's Truth in Advertising. :cool:
Olskool 12-09-06, 05:49 PM	THe player controls who his relations and the like ARE . Not in my campaigns they don't. No player knows the setting as well as I do. Because of that No one is more qualified to place their character at a starting point in "our shared imagined space" as I am. Players get to control where their characters are going, not where they came from.
HamHam 12-09-06, 05:53 PM	Furthermore, if you were truly a good DM you would know your players well enough to know who wouldn't mind this type of story development concerning their characters and who would mind it. That's assuming player consent. Which the player might then give ex post facto by not leaving the game when you do it. That doesn't mean it's not there. Problem with the magic system? How so? Bringing people back from the dead is too easy. If taken to it's logical conclusion, most people would never stay dead from anything but old age. Assasins have have killed the king! Oh no, you've made us waste 25k gp rezing him. How horrible. BBEG takes the princess hostage and threatens to kill her? Big deal, we can always rez her afterwards. Your parents were killed by orcs? Pull together a couple thousand for a Raise Dead and it no longer matters.
deadDMwalking 12-09-06, 05:55 PM	If Luke were a PC, he wouldn't really have much reason to complain about the fact that Vader is his father. The reason I say this is because 1) Luke (or the player) admitted to not knowing anything about his father (or at least, very little). Knowing he was raised by his uncle and aunt in small farming community far away from the action is really his "backstory". 2) NPCs were used to advance the information about his father. Luke never said anything like "I hope my father is a cool guy that will give me a starship." If he did, maybe the DM should consider it. Basically, Luke said he wanted to find out more about his father. When the DM (via NPC Ben Kenobe) reveals that Luke's father was killed by Darth Vader, Luke has no reason not to believe it. He didn't have any choice, but there is nothing wrong with it. 3) When the DM later uses another NPC to say that Obiwan lied, the PC can't complain. He didn't attempt a sense motive against Obiwan. The fact that Vader claims to be Luke's father doesn't make it true. At this point, it is simply a possibility. A good DM might gauge the player's reaction. Whether it is true or not has very little to do with what the effect on the player is. 4) When the player responds to the hook, that mkaes it successful. If it engages the player and creates an interesting story - perfect! - the game will likely be successful. And most of the success of this story had to do with the player being open to the DM filling in some details in the backstory.
HamHam 12-09-06, 05:58 PM	If Luke were a PC, he wouldn't really have much reason to complain about the fact that Vader is his father. The reason I say this is because 1) Luke (or the player) admitted to not knowing anything about his father (or at least, very little). Knowing he was raised by his uncle and aunt in small farming community far away from the action is really his "backstory". 2) NPCs were used to advance the information about his father. Luke never said anything like "I hope my father is a cool guy that will give me a starship." If he did, maybe the DM should consider it. Basically, Luke said he wanted to find out more about his father. When the DM (via NPC Ben Kenobe) reveals that Luke's father was killed by Darth Vader, Luke has no reason not to believe it. He didn't have any choice, but there is nothing wrong with it. You're confusing IC with OOC.
Magnus_the_Mad 12-09-06, 06:00 PM	THe player controls who his relations and the like ARE not who they BECOME. Sometimes. You can attempt to pick your friends and enemies but you don't always get your way. Thats trying to decide, not controlling. A player does not have control over all of their relations and the like.
Magnus_the_Mad 12-09-06, 06:03 PM	You're confusing IC with OOC. So differentiate between the two and show examples. You have a bad knack for just spouting something without trying to attempt to explain yourself. We don't view you as an all knowing seer so come up with a point to make please.
Magnus_the_Mad 12-09-06, 06:06 PM	Bringing people back from the dead is too easy. If taken to it's logical conclusion, most people would never stay dead from anything but old age. Assasins have have killed the king! Oh no, you've made us waste 25k gp rezing him. How horrible. BBEG takes the princess hostage and threatens to kill her? Big deal, we can always rez her afterwards. Your parents were killed by orcs? Pull together a couple thousand for a Raise Dead and it no longer matters. You forget one thing, the spirit of the deceased has to be willing to come back. You can cast the spell to no avail and all the material components are spent with no apparent result. The king may have been assasinated but maybe he has found peace in the afterlife and does not wish to return. Death is the release from life, or so some believe. Also, certain effects prevent the use of raise dead so depending on your level it may not be possible to even attempt a resurrection. Not everyone has 5k sitting around to pay for a raise dead and it only gets worse with ressurect and true rez.
Lethanic 12-09-06, 06:10 PM	Sometimes. You can attempt to pick your friends and enemies but you don't always get your way. Thats trying to decide, not controlling. A player does not have control over all of their relations and the like. POssibly. I wouldn't object AT THE BEGINNING to a player defining their relations in some detail, so long as they don't turn it into an exercise in powergaming. "Well, my uncle is a twentieth level paladin in charge of the CHurch of. . .and my other uncle is head of the Mages guild and. ." The less crucial the NPC is to the world at large, the more detail they can absolutely define about them.
Lethanic 12-09-06, 06:12 PM	You forget one thing, the spirit of the deceased has to be willing to come back. You can cast the spell to no avail and all the material components are spent with no apparent result. The king may have been assasinated but maybe he has found peace in the afterlife and does not wish to return. Death is the release from life, or so some believe. Also, certain effects prevent the use of raise dead so depending on your level it may not be possible to even attempt a resurrection. Not everyone has 5k sitting around to pay for a raise dead and it only gets worse with ressurect and true rez. And if they are spells from priests, the God of Death might simply not want to give up his new soul.
Olskool 12-09-06, 06:13 PM	POssibly. I wouldn't object AT THE BEGINNING to a player defining their relations in some detail, so long as they don't turn it into an exercise in powergaming. "Well, my uncle is a twentieth level paladin in charge of the CHurch of. . .and my other uncle is head of the Mages guild and. ." The less crucial the NPC is to the world at large, the more detail they can absolutely define about them. I still think that's too much power over the game for most players to handle.
HamHam 12-09-06, 06:14 PM	So differentiate between the two and show examples. You have a bad knack for just spouting something without trying to attempt to explain yourself. We don't view you as an all knowing seer so come up with a point to make please. Do you really need every little thing explained to you? How about thinking it through for yourself? Everything we see happen in the movie is IC. None of it is evidence for what Luke's player and DM may or may not have discussed OOC.
Lethanic 12-09-06, 06:16 PM	Do you really need every little thing explained to you? How about thinking it through for yourself? Everything we see happen in the movie is IC. None of it is evidence for what Luke's player and DM may or may not have discussed OOC. ANd so, playing through that, you would rather have "Luke I am your father" be said with the player allready knowing it?
Magnus_the_Mad 12-09-06, 06:21 PM	POssibly. I wouldn't object AT THE BEGINNING to a player defining their relations in some detail, so long as they don't turn it into an exercise in powergaming. "Well, my uncle is a twentieth level paladin in charge of the CHurch of. . .and my other uncle is head of the Mages guild and. ." The less crucial the NPC is to the world at large, the more detail they can absolutely define about them. I can buy that. Let's say, however, that a player insists on having that as a background. Work it as a DM. "Ok, your uncle can be a twentieth level paladin in charge of a church." If that player abuses that npcs position and tries to get any in game advantages (powerful items, gold, spells for free, etc) then put the kabosh on it by controlling the environment concerning that npc. Player: "I want to see my uncle please." DM (playing low priest npc): "I'm afraid he is away on important business young master. May I be of assistance?" Player: "I was hoping he could help me out with some magical items or some funds." DM: "Well, we have a selection of items that you may peruse for purchase but I'm afraid we accept tithes, not give them." Player: "What?! I want it for free! You'd better do what I want or my uncle will see to it that you are punished!" DM: "I'm sorry, but I am only following the instructions your uncle left for me to follow without deviation." Player: "He's denying to help me? Why?" DM: "Your uncle blelieves that you can make your own path. You just have to follow your feet and desires to make it so. Just as he had to earn his place at the peak of this churches order, you too must earn your way to your goals. Now, I must attend other business this day. Was there anything else you wished of us that we can possibly help with?" Control the environment. The player can have the uncle but don't let them use him as his cash cow.
Magnus_the_Mad 12-09-06, 06:23 PM	Do you really need every little thing explained to you? How about thinking it through for yourself? How about processing points, opinions and details that create a debate instead of giving answers that fail to make any of these? You leave much to be assumed by others about your answers at times.
deadDMwalking 12-09-06, 06:24 PM	That's exactly my point. As a player, I'd like that as surprise. Luke (the character) was surprised which made it a powerful moment. If Luke (the player) had known it was coming, he could have acted all melodramatic and pretended he didn't know. Maybe some people like that kind of game. If I were the player, though, I'd like it to be a surprise both for myself as a player and for my character.
HamHam 12-09-06, 06:25 PM	ANd so, playing through that, you would rather have "Luke I am your father" be said with the player allready knowing it? In essence, yes.
Lethanic 12-09-06, 06:29 PM	In essence, yes. . .then I could say I would have zero interest in playing in a game you GM'ed.
a_psh 12-09-06, 06:40 PM	Luke who's father was killed by Vader and Luke who's father is Vader are two completely different characters, even though they may have the same exact mechanical stats.I think a key conceptual word you left out is "thematically". Luke whose father was killed by Vader and Luke whose father is Vader are two completely thematically different characters. That's the core here: what the character is about is more important than his stats or the meathooks in his backstory or anything else of the sort. It's the core of the concept rather than the supporting details.
a_psh 12-09-06, 06:43 PM	Because of that No one is more qualified to place their character at a starting point in "our shared imagined space" as I am.That's because you claimed 99% of that space as yours and yours alone.
Greg K 12-09-06, 06:50 PM	You know, everyone insisting that Players have the right to come up with their own backstories really grinds my gears. Players should'nt know anything about their character"s history that the DM has'nt told them. Players can invent their characters personalities, but their backgrounds are entirely in the hands of the DM. The very idea that players should have a say about their character before they start playing is repellant and more than slightly off putting to me. I beg to differ. Players should have input. However, the players should not assume they have the right to develop their character background off on their own. They be consulting with the DM ahead of time to develop a background that it fits within the various aspects of the setting (cosmology, region/countries/, cultures, organizations, NPCs, etc.)- all this assuming the DM has actually put forethought into the setting.
Greg K 12-09-06, 06:51 PM	Not without prior player consent. Especially not when it involves something that fundamentally changes the character. There's a significant difference between "your hometown is under attack from goblins" and "your father was actually a demon". That counts as prior player consent. If, on the other hand, the player had created a character and said "My parents adopted me, my real parents are dead." the DM couldn't be like "Nah, they're not really dead!" without getting permission to do so from the player. And if the player had created a character and said "My parents adopeted me, and while the character doesn't know this his real parents were imprisoned in another dimension by an evil wizard (or something)" the DM would be obligated to work that into the campaign. That is your opinion and you are entitled to it. However, the DM is not obligated to work that background into the campaign. If the DM is running a homebrew, their might not be alternate planes. Or maybe if therre are alternate planes, the background never comes to the forefront, because the players via their characters take the campaign in a direction where exploring the background is not an option. As for the DM introducing a twist to your background, that is a DM decision. If you say your character is an orphan and was adopted by relatives after his parents died, it may well be fair game to reintroduce one or both parents as twist. If the character did not know the birth parents and was merely told that they were dead, every DM I personally know would say it was perfectly fine to bring the parent(s) back with a twist without the player's permission. It has no real effect on the backstory as the player was still raised by relatives and became who they are- it just adds a new dimention to the charcter.
TwistedPuppy 12-09-06, 06:57 PM	I also think a DM should be able to use a character's backstory to make plot hooks. Not without prior player consent. Especially not when it involves something that fundamentally changes the character. There's a significant difference between "your hometown is under attack from goblins" and "your father was actually a demon". He didn't say "change the backstory." He said make use of it. When you create a backstory for a character and tell it/ hand it to the DM, you're giving him permission to use it for plot hooks. That counts as prior player consent. If, on the other hand, the player had created a character and said "My parents adopted me, my real parents are dead." the DM couldn't be like "Nah, they're not really dead!" without getting permission to do so from the player. And if the player had created a character and said "My parents adopeted me, and while the character doesn't know this his real parents were imprisoned in another dimension by an evil wizard (or something)" the DM would be obligated to work that into the campaign. No, he isn't. Tell, me, just what are the obligations of a player? From what you've posted so far, the only obligation of the player is to dictate to the DM what will or will not happen. DMs aren't the only people at the table who can be control freaks.
a_psh 12-09-06, 07:00 PM	To elaborate... As a plot hook, "I am your father" is decent, but irritating. It's an attempt to drive the hook really deep so you can't avoid it, so there's a guarantee the GM can reel you in and make you take part in whatever he planned next. As a bang -- a plot hook without the "hook," a thing that happens so that you can react to it rather than a thing that happens so that you react to it in a certain way -- it's powerful and dramatic (though potentially overused). It's great for just generating a reaction and seeing where the players go with it. However, you have to ask yourself how this relates to the premise of the story and character. If Luke's hypothetical player created a character around ideas like "I want to discover my inner Jedi nature," "I want my faith to be tested," and "I want to struggle against an inner darkness," that's a cool bang to throw his way. It's big and, yes, shocking, if done right, and it helps him develop his character. If Luke's hypothetical player created a character around ideas like "I want to rise to greatness from humble beginnings," "My character represents unshakable purity in a cold, dark world," "I am a free agent, an unpredictable ripple in the Force," or "I want to explore a romantic relationship with Leia," then you've made a mistake. You're using setting authority to try to change the point and purpose of his character out from under him, either cutting down his own ideas or forcing him to explore a concept he didn't really find interesting.
a_psh 12-09-06, 07:04 PM	Yes, but the world ALSO sets the PARAMETERS of the game. What is and is not possible.Enh, that's the role of premise, really. And premise is something you should all agree to because the game's going in different directions otherwise. The details of the world can be easily (and satisfyingly) constructed in play rather than out of play as long as you've all got a shared premise to guide you. What I really don't get seems to be the attitude that it is ALWAYS the DM that should adjust, and never the player. Why does the PLAYER not have some obligation to try to meet the DM halfway, or adjust their concepts to fit the world?Problem: you can't adjust your idea to mesh better with the GM's if the GM won't even tell you what his idea is, as in the undead and warlocks examples.
HamHam 12-09-06, 07:07 PM	Tell, me, just what are the obligations of a player? The same as the DMs, to work with the whole group toward a game that is fun for everyone.
Lethanic 12-09-06, 07:09 PM	Enh, that's the role of premise, really. And premise is something you should all agree to because the game's going in different directions otherwise. The details of the world can be easily (and satisfyingly) constructed in play rather than out of play as long as you've all got a shared premise to guide you. Problem: you can't adjust your idea to mesh better with the GM's if the GM won't even tell you what his idea is, as in the undead and warlocks examples. YOU can do what I do; GIve a list of suggestion sof the sorts of things that MIGHT fit without saying precisely WHY, or, if possible, saying what a change that might MAKE it fit is,. But. .without revealing.
a_psh 12-09-06, 07:25 PM	OOC knowledge should not have any effect on your character in advantageous ways. I would even go so far as to say that it shouldn't have an effect on your character in disadventageous ways either. If you use it as an advantage (for example, knowing the monster's weaknesses even though your character hasn't encountered it before) that's metagaming and should not be allowed.If you can use OOC knowledge to make a more interesting story, something with purpose and narrative zing, what's the problem, exactly? One of the most fun D&D sessions I had a few years ago (playing in the more traditional way, for the most part), involved the players going to hunt down a criminal in the woods while one of them stayed behind to guard a supposedly-injured ally of theirs. The guy they were looking for was a red herring, and that ally turned out to be a crazy murderer who knocked out the guy and strung him up in his basement because he wanted to flay him alive and wear his skin. Since the captured PC was rather a greedy self-serving bastard (kinda of a Belkar character), the rest of the party said all kinds of things about how they were afraid of what he would try to take advantage of their ally in various ways during the return trip. The juxtaposition of their characters' speculation and the actual situation was hilarious. And it wouldn't've happened at all without them exercising OOC knowledge to create that little bit of dramatic irony. Should I have forced them to shut up about it instead, since that was "metagaming"? And, while we're on the subject of moments that make you realize that certain conventional wisdom is patently false... At the very end, when we wrapped up that same campaign, right after the final scene, so to speak, one of the players threw out a scene idea and we played it, with the PCs confronting their old patron (we elided what would have been three hours of fighting his guards) and exchange a few ominous words. It was a beautiful capstone to everything that had gone before. There, right there, was a massive exercise of every kind of authority by a player (with a little bit of negotiation, of course, since there's always negotiation happening on the social level), and it brought the whole game together in a wonderful, gripping way. We were all absolutely ecstatic at the end of the night. And we managed both of the above without having any idea what we were doing, simply because our unspoken and unexplored creative contract overpowered our desire to adhere to the standard play procedures. And that game was like twice as awesome as a result.
crustaceomutoid 12-09-06, 07:35 PM	The DM should never introduce content into the game that has a negative impact on the player or his character. Example: I played in a post apocalyptic D20 game where the party was fighting mutant animal/human hybrids. We all knew that they were a genetic disorder and that the virus was present and we had to find the cure. However after only two sessions of play the DM decided that we all had been infected and were slowly changing into something out of the Island of Dr. Moreau. We did not get a save or a chance not to be changed. It was forced on us. This was a very poor decision in the part of the DM. I believe this is the type of thing HamHam is talking about. On the flip side, if HamHam is saying that any and all material that the DM comes up with while preparing for the next game session must first be “approved” by the players, he is flat out wrong if you enjoy being entertained in game with any amount of surprise. If you want to kill all spontaneity during game night, go ahead and tell everyone at the table what is about to happen. There is nothing that says you can’t do that, however I for one would be the first to say, “Where’s the fun in that?” Isn’t D&D supposed to be fun or is that just a crazy misconception?
starfire311 12-09-06, 08:09 PM	It's not a problem as far as I see it. And I'm not the one who will be going home, you will. Re-read the post. It went over your head apparently. Yes I read your post, you will boot a player if he doen't trust you, but you don't think you should trust him, you feel that players are always trying to cheat and if you trust them they will take advantage of you, you must have seriously been burned by some players, to feel you should get trust and not them. I guess you would be surprised to find to hear it is ok to trust your players, I ahve been playing with my current group for 5 years, and 1 member of my current group has been in it since Oct 1986. I make all my rolls in the Open, no one really looks to see what I rolled occasionally a player near me will watch me roll, I don't mind he may gain information from the roll as a player, but I trust them to not act on it ingame, also all my players roll in the open as well, but I dont watch them and 90% of the time they are the only one that is paying attention to their roll. I just ask them what they got, they never cheat, and I would trust all of them with my life, I never cheat, and I would be willing to die for any of them, granted we are all the absolute best of friends, we were all best men in each others weddings. So, not trusting my players is not an issue, and IMO it should not ever be an issue, if you ever catch anyone cheating it is an automatic boot from the group, life is way too short to cheat at DnD and game with losers that have nothing better to do than cheat at DnD
a_psh 12-09-06, 08:57 PM	If you want to kill all spontaneity during game night, go ahead and tell everyone at the table what is about to happen. There is nothing that says you can’t do that, however I for one would be the first to say, “Where’s the fun in that?” Isn’t D&D supposed to be fun or is that just a crazy misconception?If you wanted to kill all spontaneity during game night, you could also go ahead and prepare an elaborate plan of what is about to happen beforehand.
a_psh 12-09-06, 09:10 PM	Actually, when tyhey are DECIDED ON as GM, they are TACITLY given certain story authority that the PLAYERS don't have> If another PLAYER whated that story authority THEY could have volubnteered to do the work coming with DMing. They didn't. THey don't have that authority. They want it, come up with their own campaign, get players for it.So, in other words, only one person at the table ever has story authority? What ever happened to "making a story together"? A lot of people say "RPGs are about stories." I actually believe that whole hog. So, if one guy is in charge of the "story" and writes most of it out-of-game and then you just play through it, with him making minor changes in certain places, where's the, err, story? Is it actually happening in-game? How is anything happening at the table "story"? This whole style of argument is backwards, anyway. "The players don't contribute as much so they don't deserve authority," you say. But how can they contribute anything when you've taken away the means for them to do so in the first place?
Lethanic 12-09-06, 09:42 PM	So, in other words, only one person at the table ever has story authority? What ever happened to "making a story together"? A lot of people say "RPGs are about stories." I actually believe that whole hog. So, if one guy is in charge of the "story" and writes most of it out-of-game and then you just play through it, with him making minor changes in certain places, where's the, err, story? Is it actually happening in-game? How is anything happening at the table "story"? This whole style of argument is backwards, anyway. "The players don't contribute as much so they don't deserve authority," you say. But how can they contribute anything when you've taken away the means for them to do so in the first place? THey do have 'authority' they control the actions of their charachters, and their characters influence the world. They coudl cause kingdoms to rise or fall, and greatly alter the landscape of the world. Its my job to make sure that world reacts in a reasonable manner to their actions. .but they DON'T - aside from at the beginning, have direct control over that world. If they have suggestions on what direction they woudl like to go, by all means I'll try to give opportunities in that direction. But. .the setting is, once started, the setting and they interact with it. Quite often they have had a large part in its making before the game starts. I have inserted entire city - states to suit one player - a city state that fit into the fabric of the world well but that wasn't there - but, once the game starts, the players have their characters, I have the world.
pres_man 12-09-06, 11:59 PM	I would like to say about using a character's background in a way that the player may not like (and to be able to determine that is to talk to the player or know them really well), may be part of the problem some DMs complain about the player not making up a background for their character. This just could be an informal way of the player making it clear that what the character background is, is only a concern to him, not to the DM. I have to say, I found Olskool's comment humorous, I still can't believe it was not a joke about players not having any say. Though I should say if you believe that, then you should just make the characters up for them. If they get no say in any of that, why do they get a say in their feats, skill ranks, hp, classes, even how the ability scores are distributed?
pres_man 12-10-06, 12:03 AM	And I don't get where you are getting that idea. Nobody has said that a DM has to change anything based on the views of ONE player. One player has no more power than the DM. A player that is acting like a jerk, e.g. not making any attempt to compromise, is a jerk, and should be treat as such. Yet so should a DM that is acting like a jerk, e.g. not making any attempt to compromise. Being a jerk is being a jerk, irregardless of who is doing it. The fact that a person takes on the role of being the DM does not make their jerk-like actions any less jerk-like. Actually, when tyhey are DECIDED ON as GM, they are TACITLY given certain story authority that the PLAYERS don't have> If another PLAYER whated that story authority THEY could have volubnteered to do the work coming with DMing. They didn't. THey don't have that authority. They want it, come up with their own campaign, get players for it. So what is your point in relation to my post? Are claiming that when they decide on a DM they are deciding on who gets the right to act like a jerk?
a_psh 12-10-06, 12:22 AM	THey do have 'authority' they control the actions of their charachters, and their characters influence the world. They coudl cause kingdoms to rise or fall, and greatly alter the landscape of the world. Its my job to make sure that world reacts in a reasonable manner to their actions.This earlier post makes it sound like the GM is the only one with story authority:Actually, when tyhey are DECIDED ON as GM, they are TACITLY given certain story authority that the PLAYERS don't have> If another PLAYER whated that story authority THEY could have volubnteered to do the work coming with DMing. They didn't. THey don't have that authority. They want it, come up with their own campaign, get players for it.... So, which is it? Are you running the story or just managing the background elements?
Lethanic 12-10-06, 07:56 AM	So what is your point in relation to my post? Are claiming that when they decide on a DM they are deciding on who gets the right to act like a jerk? No. .but at that point, when they try to wrest things around again, that THEY are the ones being jerks.
Lethanic 12-10-06, 08:01 AM	This earlier post makes it sound like the GM is the only one with story authority:... So, which is it? Are you running the story or just managing the background elements? . .. Yes. Apart from the actions of the players and their actions alone, I am running the rest of the story. Now, it is incumbent to make sure the world reacts properly to their actions, and that their actions have influence, and if their actions take a storyline an unexpected direction, sobeit - (I generally don't plot out storylines, as such, but "Story elements" almost like little modular pieces - the stories develop depending on what they do with them) - but they don't have control over the particulars of the SETTING - outside of the influences the actions of their character might have - once the game starts. THe game is not a comittie, they know this, they want this. THey get plenty of influence at the beginning during the design phase. After that, they get out from behind the steering wheel - again - outside of the actions and influences of their own character.
Matthew77 12-10-06, 10:27 AM	Lots of good comments from everyone. I am really enjoying hearing different perspectives, thank you. Not enough time to reply to everything, so here are some general thoughts on the last couple pages. @HamHam: You seem to have said that "the game can be good when all the players and DM have full pre-knowledge of plot events." You have also said "writing out the story ahead of time is railroading, and that is bad." How do you reconcile this contradiction? About making your Characters to specificially fit the campaign, as in my Undead/no clerics example. Often obstacles appear in life that you aren't equipped to handle. Having to go beyond your strengths and fight something that is your weakness makes a good story. In this specific campaign, the PCs were amoung the few surviviors of a shipwreck on a land full of undead. The option of going "oh well, I'm not good at fighting undead, so I turn the problem over to the local temple and go find a different adventure" did not exist. The PCs had to deal with the obstacles they found with limited resources, and the players had a great time, even the rogues that found sneakattack mostly useless. Several people (HamHam and Pres_man I believe) mentioned that Players have knowledge about their PCs that the DM does not. This is correct. This is why the DM never has the authority to say "you can't do that because it's out of character." The Player has unique knowledge about his PC, so he has final authority over character decisions. The DM has unique knowlege about the setting and NPCs, so he has final authority over those decisions. About the distinction between a DM who bans something on a "whim", and a DM who bans something because he has a reason. I can always find a reason to ban something. If I really just don't like something (whim) I can justify it by creating a reason, (um.. it doesn't fit the flavor of the campaign, yeah), so I don't really see the usefulness of making this distinction. Does the DM "write a story"? People seem to be interpreting this as "all the plot lines are laid out and the ending is known." This interpretation is clearly not good DMing. The DM does write a story. He writes a setting and a plot hook. He writes dramatic events that drive the action in the story (the BBEG kidnaps the princess! A flood destroys the capital!). Then the gaming session starts, and the story is continued. Thus my answer: a good DM writes the skeleton of a story. The gaming session fleshes it out. About playing modules multiple times and still having fun. Knowing most of the secrets of an adventure before you play can still be fun, but IMO, it will be less fun than not having this knowledge. This is why I prefer homebrew to published adventures, and I would imagine those that prefer more player input would have more fun with homebrew as well. Most modules I've read clearly specify if the mercenary bladeslinger is going to be friend or ally, and players can't vote to change the module text :) One last response to Pres_Man. the question is, is it fun to give one person total authority without any ability to question any of the decisions made by that person, especially decisions about things that directly effect the individual players (classes, races, feats, etc). I do that, for example, I will not DM for an evil party. Frankly I don't need to spend my time so people can get a thrill from raping, murdering, pillaging in a game. I don't feel the need to inflict that upon myself. Does this mean I am controling, only in so much as I am controling myself. Huh? Isn't declaring what alignment characters can be "making a decision that directly affects the individual players" and didn't you make this decision on your whim, without consulting your players? What if your players say "oh, we have a really good backgrounds describing why we're a group of evil people but trying to hide it, and besides we're really mature players so we won't be wrecking the game with evil characters, and plus we really want to try out these evil character concepts."
Matthew77 12-10-06, 10:32 AM	So, which is it? Are you running the story or just managing the background elements? This question needs to have some definitions assigned to "running the story" before it can be answered. Example: The DM decides (with no input from the players) that a volcano is going to erupt, and destroy the capital of the kingdom. The PCs will then have to decide what to do; investigate why the volcano erupted? Stage rescue missions to save trapped citizens? Take the opportunity to conquer the kingdom? Clearly, the volcano erupting is the single most significant plot device. However, the subsequent actions of the PCs will decide the focus of the storyline. Is the DM "running the story" because his Volcano is driving the plot? Or is the Volcano just a "background element" because the PCs decide what to do in response?
pres_man 12-10-06, 11:01 AM	Huh? Isn't declaring what alignment characters can be "making a decision that directly affects the individual players" and didn't you make this decision on your whim, without consulting your players? What if your players say "oh, we have a really good backgrounds describing why we're a group of evil people but trying to hide it, and besides we're really mature players so we won't be wrecking the game with evil characters, and plus we really want to try out these evil character concepts." I realize that might be confusing for some, let me start off by pointing out that evil alignments are not generally meant for PCs, don't believe me, read the PHB: Most player characters are good or neutral rather than evil. In general, evil alignments are for villains and monsters. I would also point out the difference in the descriptions of the nine alignments, the first six end with something like, "(alignment) is the best alignment you can be because ...". While the evil alignments end with something like, "(L-N-C) evil is the most dangerous alignment because ..." So there are some indications that I believe playing evil is outside of the general rule set, which is fine if people want to play evil, I don't. I will not play in a game where the party is evil, either as someone running a PC or as the DM. This is not a "whim" it is a personal moral decision I have made. If you lie down with dogs, don't be surprised to get up with fleas. I prefer not to have the "heros" being evil, in the end I believe at least for a fictional setting good should overcome evil. So in a sense I am limiting some choice (banning certain alignments) but I make it clear that this is my personal preference and I still respect those that want to play evil characters. I will not kick the player out, but I will not participate in that type of game. And it has been my experience with the people I game with that the desire to play an evil party is often short lived and another DM we game with is usually more than happy to run it. I guess I see the distinction between something like that and saying banning the scout class, as the difference between being allergic to smoke (or asmatic) and if anybody smokes at the game you will not play versus not liking guacamole and saying you won't play with anyone if they eat it. One is more serious than the other. I will say, if a player wanted to play an evil character with the goal of redeeming that character, I might say that I would be willing to play with that, because it still holds my general moral philosphy that Good should overcome Evil. EDIT------------------------------ Here are a couple of parts of a documentary I found on YouTube. The first one is about DMing a couple of things I dislike about the DMs they talk to are: 1.First DM limits conversation during the game to only in game talk. I dislike this idea because I game with friends, it is a game and we have fun playing it. 2.The last guy makes it seem that railroading is suppose to be a good idea. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t2ZB1BPnQJ8 The second clip is about evil in the game. A couple of comments I would have about this are: 1.The first guy is the railroading DM from above, now he is clapping himself on the back for driving a female player out of his game. The lack of understanding he exhibits towards the female player is ... disturbing. 2.The guy at the end talking about the lack of ethics in D&D, is probably more like how I think and why I don't game with evil PCs. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZZosb792cQA
Olskool 12-10-06, 12:04 PM	That's because you claimed 99% of that space as yours and yours alone. Not true. It's the player's every bit as much as it is mine. They just don't know what they have until they start playing. That's why, before they start playing, having a player dictate their character's history to me is not only counterproductive, but a complete waste of time.
Always-Late 12-10-06, 12:45 PM	Not true. It's the player's every bit as much as it is mine. They just don't know what they have until they start playing. That's why, before they start playing, having a player dictate their character's history to me is not only counterproductive, but a complete waste of time.So they don't have anything until you give it to them. What do you do to bad players, withold backstory knowledge? "You, in fact, were actually not raised by the good men of the village of Thormak, but were in actuality a murderous rapist before some wizard changed your memory."
HamHam 12-10-06, 01:02 PM	@HamHam: You seem to have said that "the game can be good when all the players and DM have full pre-knowledge of plot events." You have also said "writing out the story ahead of time is railroading, and that is bad." How do you reconcile this contradiction? They don't have pre-knowledge of plot events. They have pre-knowledge of plot elements which may interact in such a way as to cause certain events to happen. Or they might not. Whether they do or not is dependant on several factors, some of which at least are out of the hands of both the DM and the players.
Olskool 12-10-06, 02:02 PM	So they don't have anything until you give it to them. What do you do to bad players, withold backstory knowledge? "You, in fact, were actually not raised by the good men of the village of Thormak, but were in actuality a murderous rapist before some wizard changed your memory." I don't do anything to bad players because I've trained my players to play right. Players, like children, need boundaries and limits whether they know it or not. Part of being a good DM is properly using the authority that's been given to you to set boundaries for players.Once players understand the limits of the game, everyone has a much better playing experience.
archcomponent 12-10-06, 02:13 PM	I can always find a reason to ban something. If I really just don't like something (whim) I can justify it by creating a reason, (um.. it doesn't fit the flavor of the campaign, yeah), so I don't really see the usefulness of making this distinction. If that is the case, you cannot pretend that your setting has any consistency or integrity. It is a hollow vehicle for you to have arbitrary control at a whim. So your arguments about needing control to preserve the setting are nonsense, when you are readily to warp or mutilate it at any time to enforce arbitrary desires.
a_psh 12-10-06, 03:10 PM	EDIT------------------------------ Here are a couple of parts of a documentary I found on YouTube. The first one is about DMing a couple of things I dislike about the DMs they talk to are: 1.First DM limits conversation during the game to only in game talk. I dislike this idea because I game with friends, it is a game and we have fun playing it. 2.The last guy makes it seem that railroading is suppose to be a good idea. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t2ZB1BPnQJ8 The second clip is about evil in the game. A couple of comments I would have about this are: 1.The first guy is the railroading DM from above, now he is clapping himself on the back for driving a female player out of his game. The lack of understanding he exhibits towards the female player is ... disturbing. 2.The guy at the end talking about the lack of ethics in D&D, is probably more like how I think and why I don't game with evil PCs. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZZosb792cQAInteresting. What's the source film called? None of the stuff these folks say surprises me, but a lot of it vaguely annoys me... On your example 1.1: I love quoting Vincent Baker. He's probably one of the people with the most unique stuff to say about roleplaying games. Other have written tons and tons and tons over the years, but it's all kind of regurgitated and old hat. I like what he says about "burning down the firewall" here (http://www.lumpley.com/hardcore.html):Conventional wisdom: if your character's not in the scene, you can't participate. Text from Dogs in the Vineyard [a game her wrote]: The game calls for lots of free table talk, with you and your fellow players calling out suggestions, kibitzing, and expanding on one another's descriptions. Don't shut your mouth just because your character's off the stage. Conventional wisdom: if your character's not in the scene, you shouldn't let information from the scene influence your actions. Text from Dogs: The game works even better when you bring your own metagame knowledge into your character's actions. If you're choosing between two possible, realistic actions for your character to take, don't limit your decision-making to your character's point of view. Choose the one that you prefer! Conventional wisdom: when your character's surprised, you should be surprised. I can't beat Ron Edwards' answer to this one. The whole answer's here on the Forge, but here's a quote: I'm now going to say something very harsh - traditionally, the focus on "must ... surprise ... players!" is trying to solve the basic problem that the encounter with, e.g., the goblins, is fundamentally a stupid and irrelevant event in the game. Gotta have a fight. Goblins. Must make it exciting. Um, well, I guess the only way is to "get into character" and "be surprised," so I gotta figure out how. OK, tell them to immerse, surprise the characters with GM-rolls-it Perception checks, and thus the players will be surprised, right? Wrong. The perception check is a big fat meaningless waste - the encounter only takes on player-relevance if, in fact, the goblins are relevant to the Creative Agenda of this group. Conventional wisdom: it's boring when your character's not in the scene. Text from Dogs: Like every social fun, playing Dogs in the Vineyard depends on constant feedback and demonstrated enthusiasm. When somebody says something cool, show it. When something's funny, laugh. When you have a suggestion, shout out. (I know, I know, duh, right? I only mention it because I've played other games where you didn't, y'know, do things like that.) Also, to really deliver, the game shouldn't be isolated from your regular socializing, it should blend in. Chat about the game before and after, just like you would a book or TV show or movie. Chat about books and movies and catch up with each other, during! You can think of it as commercial breaks if you want, but tied to the social rhythms of your little group, not on TV's 15-minute cycle. If the game's worth playing, it'll draw your attention back in. Interspersing some time of just hanging out like friends can be pretty effective for maintaining a pace, prolonging suspense, and giving payoff moments real punch, so don't worry too much about digressions. ... Your game will have an overall story, made up of the interwoven individual stories of your characters. If it's not as fun and engaging as the best TV shows, I haven't done my job. On your example 1.2 and 2.1: The "railroading" GM you describe above seems to be more-or-less oblivious to the social contract. His general stance seems to be "I'll **** with you, but I'm doing it impartially, so your limits and our out-of-game social relationship are irrelevant." The impartiality is rather a sham, because he really does want to drive the game to a specific place. On your example 2.2: The guy talking about the lack of ethics surprises me a bit. What's alignment, after all? Is he saying that you can be a self-proclaimed bad guy? It is true that many people play the archetypical amoral thief or whatever, but On an example you didn't comment on, the bald guy talking in the second video: You can't separate players entirely from characters. There's just no point to doing it, either. The thing you created represents you, just like any work of fiction you write or picture you draw represents you. Whatever character you play, and however unlike you that character is, you're still expressing your ideas. Your ideas about what's wrong in addition to your ideas about what's right, but still things that are important, relevant, interesting to you. "My-guyism" is stupid, but an experienced and capable player should be able to understand what kind of statement she makes when she plays a character, and should be able to recognize what kind of statements others are making, as well. The big "Burning Down the Firewall" quote above applies, as well.
a_psh 12-10-06, 03:19 PM	I don't do anything to bad players because I've trained my players to play right. Players, like children, need boundaries and limits whether they know it or not. Part of being a good DM is properly using the authority that's been given to you to set boundaries for players.Once players understand the limits of the game, everyone has a much better playing experience.Children? Children!? They're your friends, aren't they? If not, aren't they at least your peers, people who deserve respect? Where do you get off treating them like children? How is the game a satisfying social experience that way? I don't want to hear about exploration or story or roleplaying or tactical combat or any elements of play here. Just about the social structure and experience of your game and how that specifically makes sitting at the table a worthwhile experience.
Olskool 12-10-06, 03:49 PM	Children? Children!? They're your friends, aren't they? If not, aren't they at least your peers, people who deserve respect? Where do you get off treating them like children? How is the game a satisfying social experience that way? I don't want to hear about exploration or story or roleplaying or tactical combat or any elements of play here. Just about the social structure and experience of your game and how that specifically makes sitting at the table a worthwhile experience. Yes, children. If you don't know what I'm talking about when I say players are like children, then you just need some more experience from the DM's end of the table. My players are my friends, but in the context of the game they're not my peers. Setting limits on available options for my players is'nt disrespect.It's mandatory if you want a cmapaign to work. It'd be disrespectful to my players if I did'nt limit them, because then I would'nt be doing my job, and I'd be wasting my time and theirs. Now that's disrespectful. You seem to lack understanding of what a DM actually does. If you DMed more It'd probably make you a better player and you would'nt resent your DM for doing his job.
Magnus_the_Mad 12-10-06, 04:12 PM	Yes I read your post, you will boot a player if he doen't trust you, but you don't think you should trust him, you feel that players are always trying to cheat and if you trust them they will take advantage of you, you must have seriously been burned by some players, to feel you should get trust and not them. No, see, you didn't understand my post. I will boot a player if he insists on being a pain in my ass. I don't have to boot him if he doesn't trust me because I have the rules and guidlines to run a fair and consistent game. I have no reason to cheat any player. I never said that my players are always trying to cheat me (read the damn lines :ahem: ). I said at times it can happen. Big difference. I suggest you actually read what is written instead of trying to translate it into your warped point of view. Yes, I have been burned by players in the past and it has taught me to be a better DM by learning from the mistakes I made by allowing certain thing to be had by said players. I no longer play with those players because we both moved on to other groups. For someone who has been playing since 1986 you have a real hard time with reading comprehension.
pres_man 12-10-06, 04:17 PM	Interesting. What's the source film called? I think it is called "The Dungeons and Dragons Experience". At least that is what it appears to be looking at the various other clips. On your example 2.2: The guy talking about the lack of ethics surprises me a bit. What's alignment, after all? Is he saying that you can be a self-proclaimed bad guy? It is true that many people play the archetypical amoral thief or whatever, but I think what he was saying is there is no inherent morality in the game. If the players all want to be evil, that is fine by the game standards as is if all the players want to be exalted. Basically I think is saying that the writers try to avoid having too obvious of moral stories, which is understandable given that they are in a business and don't want to alienate any of their potential customers.
HamHam 12-10-06, 05:13 PM	I think what he was saying is there is no inherent morality in the game. If the players all want to be evil, that is fine by the game standards as is if all the players want to be exalted. Basically I think is saying that the writers try to avoid having too obvious of moral stories, which is understandable given that they are in a business and don't want to alienate any of their potential customers. It's not just understandable, it's intelligent and the right thing to do.
Comus 12-10-06, 05:18 PM	Yes, children. If you don't know what I'm talking about when I say players are like children, then you just need some more experience from the DM's end of the table. My players are my friends, but in the context of the game they're not my peers. Setting limits on available options for my players is'nt disrespect.It's mandatory if you want a cmapaign to work. It'd be disrespectful to my players if I did'nt limit them, because then I would'nt be doing my job, and I'd be wasting my time and theirs. Now that's disrespectful. You seem to lack understanding of what a DM actually does. If you DMed more It'd probably make you a better player and you would'nt resent your DM for doing his job. Man. Usually I try and be diplomatic with people who don't share my viewpoints. But... Man. I just can't manage it this time. YOU ARE NOT BETTER THAN YOUR PLAYERS. Get it through your skull. Just because you have some iota of responcibility over them - which they have given you, and can freely take away - you aren't immediately the only adult in the room. You seem to lack understanding of what a DM actually does. Banning things doesn't make you a better DM. Running a game that people enjoy makes a person a good DM. You can run a good game with every book, and you can run one that's core-only, and restricted at that. There's no single answer to what makes a good game, but there are plenty of answers on how to ruin a game. I've played with DMs who thought they were better than the players. I don't like that kind of thing. Even as a DM, I don't sit there and think I have to 'train' my players. That's silly. The closest you get is teaching new players how to use a system they don't understand yet. Get over yourself.
archcomponent 12-10-06, 05:46 PM	Yes, children. If you don't know what I'm talking about when I say players are like children, then you just need some more experience from the DM's end of the table. Or maybe you just need to stop acting like a child when you are a player. In the grown-up world, not everyone does that, and there is no excuse for it. In fact, not even the DM needs to act like a demanding, petulant child.
a_psh 12-10-06, 06:35 PM	Yes, children. If you don't know what I'm talking about when I say players are like children, then you just need some more experience from the DM's end of the table.The fact that you assume I don't GM because I insist upon actually respecting my friends is telling. Guess what? I've spent something like 90% of my time GMing things. If you don't know what I'm talking about when I say that good friends or even semi-acquainted reasonable adults can limit themselves just fine, maybe YOU need more experience just plain interacting with people. My players are my friends, but in the context of the game they're not my peers.Then you've killed the best part of the game before you even start. It'd be disrespectful to my players if I did'nt limit them, because then I would'nt be doing my job, and I'd be wasting my time and theirs. Now that's disrespectful.No, treating them like children is disrespectful. Not respecting their input by rabidly caging it is disrespectful. You seem to lack understanding of what a DM actually does. If you DMed more It'd probably make you a better player and you would'nt resent your DM for doing his job.You seem to lack understanding of the basic structure and social framework of roleplaying. If you actually read some theory and design stuff about RPGs in general and thought about the social contract of the game more it'd probably make you a better GM because you wouldn't be stuck thinking about it from this backwards, dysfunctional perspective.
a_psh 12-10-06, 07:32 PM	I think it is called "The Dungeons and Dragons Experience". At least that is what it appears to be looking at the various other clips.Thanks. I think what he was saying is there is no inherent morality in the game. If the players all want to be evil, that is fine by the game standards as is if all the players want to be exalted. Basically I think is saying that the writers try to avoid having too obvious of moral stories, which is understandable given that they are in a business and don't want to alienate any of their potential customers.Hmm... I find it weird that the guy considers that a "flaw" per se. Still, I get what he's getting at. I kinda see it the other way: there's too much inherent morality in the game in places, because of the way alignment works and the presuppositions made in a lot of modules. I find that most people design moral problems with a presupposed morality in mind, which I think ultimately stifles the moral dialogue in-game. I find that it's a lot more fun to explore this kind of stuff when I'm not pushing an agenda as a GM.
a_psh 12-10-06, 07:40 PM	Lol, I just realize that "that guy" is Tracy Hickman. Puts some things into context, heh.
Olskool 12-10-06, 09:26 PM	Man. Usually I try and be diplomatic with people who don't share my viewpoints. But... Man. I just can't manage it this time. YOU ARE NOT BETTER THAN YOUR PLAYERS. Get it through your skull. Just because you have some iota of responcibility over them - which they have given you, and can freely take away - you aren't immediately the only adult in the room. You seem to lack understanding of what a DM actually does. Banning things doesn't make you a better DM. Running a game that people enjoy makes a person a good DM. You can run a good game with every book, and you can run one that's core-only, and restricted at that. There's no single answer to what makes a good game, but there are plenty of answers on how to ruin a game. I've played with DMs who thought they were better than the players. I don't like that kind of thing. Even as a DM, I don't sit there and think I have to 'train' my players. That's silly. The closest you get is teaching new players how to use a system they don't understand yet. Get over yourself. 1. I am actually better than my players. We took a poll. 2. Restricting optional material does make you a better DM. 3.There is no possible way to use everything from every book and still run a well paced and engaging game. 12 year olds continue to try. But this does'nt mean it works 4.Just because you think your players will walk out on you if you ever dare say no them, does'nt mean that mine will. If you know how to DM it's never an issue.If you're good, you're never gonna lose that crown. The very fact that you seem so so worried about your players walking away says volumes about your skills as a DM. Get that through your skull.
Matthew77 12-10-06, 09:47 PM	If that is the case, you cannot pretend that your setting has any consistency or integrity. It is a hollow vehicle for you to have arbitrary control at a whim. So your arguments about needing control to preserve the setting are nonsense, when you are readily to warp or mutilate it at any time to enforce arbitrary desires. Huh? Just because I'm willing to admit banning something on whim means I'm warping and mutilating my campaign setting? I made the entire setting. Pretty much everything from the names of the continents to the placement of the oceans to what prestige classes exist was made at my whim. I've been using this world for over 5 years. It is both logical and consistent. Just because I decided as soon as complete warrior came out that no Frenzied Berserkers will ever exist in this campaign world doesn't warp or mutiliate it.
a_psh 12-10-06, 09:48 PM	Honestly, I'm a lot less interested in optional material than in the other questions TPK raises. Those seem to be more transcendental and, well, more important. Questions about how both the players and GM contribute to the game and its social structure. Stuff about how the players "balance themselves," &c.
Lethanic 12-10-06, 09:54 PM	Guys. .I hope you can tell "Olskool' is yanking your chains. .or at least I hope is . . .
bitnine 12-10-06, 09:58 PM	Guys. .I hope you can tell "Olskool' is yanking your chains. .or at least I hope is . . .You sure about that?
Comus 12-10-06, 10:52 PM	1. I am actually better than my players. We took a poll. I just took a poll. Turns out I'm better than you. And given that I'm equal to my players, I guess that means they're better than you too. 2. Restricting optional material does make you a better DM. No. Running a fun game makes one a good DM. That is the single criteria. 3.There is no possible way to use everything from every book and still run a well paced and engaging game. 12 year olds continue to try. But this does'nt mean it works You can't even use everything from the Core books unless you want to have an 11-member party and run them through the Monster Manual in alphabetical order. That doesn't mean you can't use bits from a lot of different books. 4.Just because you think your players will walk out on you if you ever dare say no them, does'nt mean that mine will. If you know how to DM it's never an issue.If you're good, you're never gonna lose that crown. The very fact that you seem so so worried about your players walking away says volumes about your skills as a DM. Get that through your skull. When did I say I was worried about them walking out? They're my friends. If they had a problem with the way I DM, they would discuss it with me, and we would work something out. You know why? Because they know they can talk to me, because I'm not a jerk... unlike some people.
pres_man 12-10-06, 11:15 PM	Man of love some of these DMs, they show me how to be better by being counter examples.
Olskool 12-10-06, 11:37 PM	Don't hate on me just cause I know where a DM's place on the food chain is. It's at the top. The top of the food chain. If you know that, then there's no need to for all this "players voting with there feet" nonsense.
Always-Late 12-10-06, 11:46 PM	Don't hate on me just cause I know where a DM's place on the food chain is. It's at the top. The top of the food chain. If you know that, then there's no need to for all this "players voting with there feet" nonsense.Players: This part of a healthy breakfast.
a_psh 12-10-06, 11:46 PM	The top of the food chain.Okay, before, I just suspected you were joking. Now I'm sure of it.
Magnus_the_Mad 12-11-06, 12:37 AM	Okay, before, I just suspected you were joking. Now I'm sure of it. :rofl: Holy crap!!! We found something to agree on!!! The world has now come to an end..... :D
Olskool 12-11-06, 01:06 AM	Okay, before, I just suspected you were joking. Now I'm sure of it. Oh, I'm serious as a heart attack. The DM has to have all the authority in a game. All of it. If I was a player, and I rarely am, I'd want the DM to be in control and sure of his Judgements. If he was'nt, other players would'nt respect his authority and then what would you have? Anarchy my friend, pure & simple. We can play D&D, or we can have anarchy.We can't have both.Not in this world buddy. Not in this world.
bitnine 12-11-06, 01:29 AM	Oh, I'm serious as a heart attack.Do you think you could do me a giant favor? I don't suppose you would post a video of yourself saying, "I am the master of this dungeon!" on youtube or somesuch? Because I think I would probably pay $20 to see that. (Seriously, that could be the summation tagline after reciting little speech you gave above; I think we need to save this for posterity.)
Doodle 12-11-06, 01:43 AM	It is amusing to me that noone in this thread has said: A good DM is one that knows his/her limits All this talk about allowing or not allowing material, modifying material, having closed or open ended plots, etc. means nothing if running the game that way is beyond the skill level (or preparation level) of the DM. Me.
Olskool 12-11-06, 01:47 AM	Do you think you could do me a giant favor? I don't suppose you would post a video of yourself saying, "I am the master of this dungeon!" on youtube or somesuch, preferably with your voice cracking while making the statement? Because I think I would probably pay $20 to see that. (Seriously, that could be the summation tagline after reciting little speech you gave above; I think we need to save this for posterity.) I am the Dungeon Master in my group. And I'm not ashamed to say it. I'm old school in my my approach t0 this ish. And my voice won't crack when I say it no matter how much money you throw at me. Dice land how they land, fudging's for wimps. I have the final say. There ain't no "if you don't like it there's the door" mess because ain't no one leaving. My players are old school too. They don't want to be coddled by some kindergarden teacher, they want a hard campaign where the threat of character death's real. They want to be challenged, not condescended to. You might mock me (and in fact it seems that you all do), but that's the most fun way to play the game. Anyone who mentions point buy gets smacked down.There are no ressurections. Prestige classes? yeah right, go somewhere else for that chief. Judging from the way a lot of you describe your playing style, that attitude is sacrilege. But you know what? I got a waiting list to get in my campaigns that goes around the block and back. People come from all over the country to play in my game. And that's how D&D ought to be.
starfire311 12-11-06, 09:05 AM	I don't do anything to bad players because I've trained my players to play right. Players, like children, need boundaries and limits whether they know it or not. Part of being a good DM is properly using the authority that's been given to you to set boundaries for players.Once players understand the limits of the game, everyone has a much better playing experience. WOW... I can not even believe this has been posted, this is one of if not the most backward post I have ever seen... You have trained you player, WTF are they trained monkeys... You clearly do not value them for anything other as toys in your game... you give the boundaries, what are you some kinda 2nd grade special ed teacher or a DM. Heck I think the 2nd grade special ed teacher would have more respect for their students. If you "trained" your players to "play right" this is a very sad state of affairs for the future of DnD, I seriously hope they don't pass on your misguided beliefs and backward ideas to more players, this game has a bad enough image problem without the players contributing to it. I just can't believe how condescending you sound, when even talking about your own players, you clearly feel that you are superior to them, and that just aint right.
CharlieRock 12-11-06, 09:10 AM	Guys. .I hope you can tell "Olskool' is yanking your chains. .or at least I hope is . . . Like I said a few pages back. Olskool is old school, truth in advertising. ;)
starfire311 12-11-06, 09:17 AM	If he was'nt, other players would'nt respect his authority and then what would you have? . ok you are starting to sound like cartman, you can't be serious.
bitnine 12-11-06, 09:41 AM	You might mock me (and in fact it seems that you all do), but that's the most fun way to play the game.Mock you? I'm not - I wouldn't even know what to say if I wanted to; I just want to hear you go on. The next time someone is making some sort of D&D documentary, I definitely think they'd benefit themselves by interviewing you. I would certainly watch it.
On_the_wings_of_TPK 12-11-06, 10:38 AM	As of late I seem to have been coming of as too hard lined. I'm not really as hard lined as I have been presenting myself. So I've given this some thought, and I hope this comes out the way I mean it too. Authority: The DM is awarded a certain amount of authority by the group they DM for. The exact amount of authority given to the DM varies from group to group. But non the less it is there. (It may be nothing more then the authority to determine whom the monster attacks, and what traps are in witch room of the dungeon, but that is still authority.) This authority is used by the DM to in effect govern the group. This done through house rules, limitting source material, or not, and running the world, etc, etc. The DM however governs with concent of the players. With out the players concenting to giving the DM the authority, there would be no game, or DM. This acts as a check to the powers of the DM. I.E Rule -1. It is important ot remeber that along with rule -1 is rule -2. Like the players, the DM is under no obligation to show up either, and just as easily "vote with his/her feet" as any player can. This kinda makes the DM a first amoung equals. The closest anology I can think of is the Canadian Prime minister. The primeminster leaders the government with concent of the other elected minister in the house of commons. Becuase of this he is awarded certain policy mking powers. The PM can make laws, recend old laws, decide to go to war or not, etc, etc. If the PM looses a crucial pieve of legislation (All legisilation is voted into power by the house of commons) then it is considered a no confadence vote, and the parliment is desolved and a general election is called. A Dm has the granted power to; limit source material, make house rules, make a final ruling on a rule, etc, etc. However this power is given to him/her by the party. If the party deicdes that they do not like what the DM is doing they can can vote with their feet by not playing. This is ware the politics differ. The DM can just as easily find a nother group, or recend their previouse desion. The players can decide to live with it, find a new group, or find a new DM. As for how much authority the DM has varies from group to group. Although i feel that generally the extreems should be avoided. A DM that allows everything the players want, whenever they want is going to run into problems. Sappose the DM allows material s/he is not familiar with, or doesn't understand. This new material may seem too powerful for the DM, in responce the DM feels that they need to come up with a way to soft nerf it in order to challenge the party. Such as say feeling that the eldritch blast ability is too strong, and constantly placing the party in AMFs. Or feeling that the a ninjas quick strike is too powerful, so now the party finds themselves against undead and constructs, all night long, all the time. Like wise though the DM may not be able to adequietly challenge a party, becuase of their strength. Every challenge is a cake-walk. Soon the players will get board, and the camapign can get stale. worse is when in responce to the party being precieved as over powered, the DM tries to crank up the power. Two things happen here: A) The DM over does it, and the party is whiped out. B) The party easily over comes the challenge, and games even more power. (Thorugh wealth, and/or XP) Either way the blow out factor eventually comes into play. The party soon finds themselves in an unwinnable encounter. They can't run becuasse by the time they realise they should it to late. Another side thing is that, maybe the player *is* bending a rule. Uusing it not in the way it was intended to be used, or maybe forgetting a slight balancing factor. Not saying they are nessiarily cheating, but maybe just misinterpriting, or forgetting something. Thus to avoid this, the DM has a responciblity to restrict material to only that witch they are familiar and comfortable with. The other extreem to this is not cool either. This is ware you have the DM restricting material just to ham string his/her players. their the type of DM that you find sitting behind their screen screaming red faced at their players, that they are the Dungeon MASTER!!!! Both extreems should be avoided, and when not can cuase groups to break down. And the fun to leak out of the game like water from a paper bag.
bitnine 12-11-06, 10:49 AM	As of late I seem to have been coming of as too hard lined. I'm not really as hard lined as I have been presenting myself.Yeah, I kind of figured this was the case for a lot of the folk on here. Otherwise, this thread was starting to look a lot like some sort of caricature thunderdome.
Boshi 12-11-06, 11:38 AM	Anyone who mentions point buy gets smacked down. What's wrong with point buy?
pres_man 12-11-06, 12:01 PM	What's wrong with point buy? Haven't you figured it out? If it ain't old school it's crap. What to play 3.x? Get smacked down. You ain't old school, you ain't nothing, you ain't nothing! ;)
Olskool 12-11-06, 01:07 PM	WOW... I can not even believe this has been posted, this is one of if not the most backward post I have ever seen... You have trained you player, WTF are they trained monkeys... You clearly do not value them for anything other as toys in your game... you give the boundaries, what are you some kinda 2nd grade special ed teacher or a DM. Heck I think the 2nd grade special ed teacher would have more respect for their students. If you "trained" your players to "play right" this is a very sad state of affairs for the future of DnD, I seriously hope they don't pass on your misguided beliefs and backward ideas to more players, this game has a bad enough image problem without the players contributing to it. I just can't believe how condescending you sound, when even talking about your own players, you clearly feel that you are superior to them, and that just aint right. Well, hopefully, a special ed teacher would'nt ever disrespect their students at all.I pray to god that someone teaching special needs kids treats them better than I treat my players. This is a game we play, and I find you comparing our chosen group dynamic to the plight of disaavantaged children extremely offensive. Because I am hard as hell on my players. Players, as a whole, tend not to be that bright, and they need to be trained and conditioned to play this game right. I don't feel superior to them in all aspects of life. Just in D&D. One of my players is a better driver than me, another is a better craftsman than me.I just happen to be better at them at this particular game. It does'nt make me superior to them. It just means I'm the DM by natural selection. If you yourself are a DM (I have no idea if you are or not) you're training your players every time you game, whether you realize it or not. Think about that next time you criticize my stance on the game. And try to keep special needs kids out of your arguments. It's offensive and it makes you sound insensitive at best. Remember who's at the top of the food chain and all these other arguments I keep hearing from the " b-b-b- but my players will leave me" crowd become irrelevant.
Crust 12-11-06, 01:17 PM	It's offensive... Offensive comments? On this forum? Impossible... :P I agree with you to a degree, Olskool. The main reason I DM is because I'm the only one who does it well. I also prefer to DM because I like being in charge of the game. Not in charge of the players, but in charge of the direction the campaign moves. I'm the most-experienced player and the most well-read player, so I feel qualified to fill the role. I also feel like I know what should happen during a gaming session better than my players know, so in that regard I feel more qualified than the others. I also agree that players need training. Players need to learn what is expected from them at the gaming table. However, it works the other way as well. The players have certain expectations, and it's important for the DM to learn those expectations and plan accordingly. It's a two-way street... or, rather, it should be a two-way street. The relationship between player and DM should be reciprocal. Give and take. Both sides are being "trained" in that regard.
On_the_wings_of_TPK 12-11-06, 01:23 PM	Well, hopefully, a special ed teacher would'nt ever disrespect their students at all.I pray to god that someone teaching special needs kids treats them better than I treat my players. This is a game we play, and I find you comparing our chosen group dynamic to the plight of disaavantaged children extremely offensive. Because I am hard as hell on my players. Players, as a whole, tend not to be that bright, and they need to be trained and conditioned to play this game right. I don't feel superior to them in all aspects of life. Just in D&D. One of my players is a better driver than me, another is a better craftsman than me.I just happen to be better at them at this particular game. It does'nt make me superior to them. It just means I'm the DM by natural selection. If you yourself are a DM (I have no idea if you are or not) you're training your players every time you game, whether you realize it or not. Think about that next time you criticize my stance on the game. And try to keep special needs kids out of your arguments. It's offensive and it makes you sound insensitive at best. Remember who's at the top of the food chain and all these other arguments I keep hearing from the " b-b-b- but my players will leave me" crowd become irrelevant. I wouldn't call it training per say. More like blending. When you play with a group, over time thier individual tases tend to even out, and become more unified. Your play style slowly melds into theirs, and theirs into yours. Assuming the group is successful. No sometimes their are times when ias the Dm want something different. There are times when my players want something different. Nothing wrong with it, and we may, or may not be able to accomadate each other. We we can we do. When we can not, we have to find other poeple who feel the same as us and want to do what we want to do. Kinda like if i wanted to play poker, I'd go out and find a poker table. Not force a checkers table into playing poker. Same with D&D. Lets say I want to run my homebrew. My group on the other hand wants to run an epic faruin game. We can comprimise. Or I can express that i hate faruin with a passion and simplely can not bring myself to game in it. You may say that it is a deal breaker for me. At this point, we can do something different, or we can find other players who suit our style better. the group would be better of finding a DM who enjoys faruin. And I'll find a group that thinks my homebrew is interesting, and want to play in it. Then as we each adjust to our new groups, our playing styles begin to meld together, and we become more of a cohessive group. Or we do not, and we start the process over again. I will say this though...The game is worth holding out untill you find a group with a simliar style to yours. No gaming is better then bad gaming.
Olskool 12-11-06, 01:42 PM	[QUOTE=On_the_wings_of_TPK;10884575 Same with D&D. Lets say I want to run my homebrew. My group on the other hand wants to run an epic faruin game. We can comprimise. [/QUOTE] See, I think our viewpoints differ there. If anyone in my current group ever said they wanted to run an epic faruin game I'd first assume they were speaking in tongues. I wold be concerned. When they explained to me what it was they had actually meant, I'd carefully listen to their argument, considering the pros and cons of each side of their argument. I'd then laugh in their face, and heap scorn and ridicule upon them, so that they, and everyone else at the table, would never mention the words "epic faruin" to me ever again.
pres_man 12-11-06, 02:29 PM	One thing I find humorous about some of these comments is some claim that they can ban a class due to its "flavor". Let's take the ninja class for example, someone might say they want to ban it based on having a non-asian setting. Some of these same DMs (as well as some others) claim you can make any concept using just the core rules. Doesn't that mean you can't actually ban the "flavor" of a ninja? Sure you ban the class, but are you going to ban all black clothing? Ban the use of all "ninja"-ish skills? Frankly, I don't see how you can ban a flavor without banning a player, because the player can introduce the flavor for their character. Some DMs seem to share the confusion as Elan does in this comic: http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0209.html
On_the_wings_of_TPK 12-11-06, 02:37 PM	See, I think our viewpoints differ there. If anyone in my current group ever said they wanted to run an epic faruin game I'd first assume they were speaking in tongues. I wold be concerned. When they explained to me what it was they had actually meant, I'd carefully listen to their argument, considering the pros and cons of each side of their argument. I'd then laugh in their face, and heap scorn and ridicule upon them, so that they, and everyone else at the table, would never mention the words "epic faruin" to me ever again. Yaa I'm glad they do. Don't get me wrong I'm not afriad to say "no" to anything. I will have a good reason for it. I willlisten to any objections or concerns. And i will consider them fairly, however the end dission is mine. I would never, luagh, or heap scorn on any player, no matter how retarded the request. That is just plain BS, and the reason why rule -1 needs to be stated. I feel sorry for your players. One thing I find humorous about some of these comments is some claim that they can ban a class due to its "flavor". Let's take the ninja class for example, someone might say they want to ban it based on having a non-asian setting. Some of these same DMs (as well as some others) claim you can make any concept using just the core rules. Doesn't that mean you can't actually ban the "flavor" of a ninja? Sure you ban the class, but are you going to ban all black clothing? Ban the use of all "ninja"-ish skills? Frankly, I don't see how you can ban a flavor without banning a player, because the player can introduce the flavor for their character. Some Dms may ban things for flavour. I try not to. Sure the ninja can be reflavoured just as easily as the rogue can. However if your playing in a pre-iron age game, full plate male might be a bit of stretch.
bitnine 12-11-06, 02:41 PM	I'd then laugh in their face, and heap scorn and ridicule upon them, so that they, and everyone else at the table, would never mention the words "epic faruin" to me ever again.Very interesting. I am curious, now. Would you ever consider physically humiliating one of your players if they brought up game material that displeased you?
pres_man 12-11-06, 02:47 PM	Probably "marks" the table before they get there. "This me table and me game. You challenge me, me smash you. Then me laugh at silly face you make." Now that is old school gaming, caveman style!
Olskool 12-11-06, 03:25 PM	I would never, luagh, or heap scorn on any player, no matter how retarded the request. That is just plain BS, and the reason why rule -1 needs to be stated. I feel sorry for your players. . No need to feel sorry for my players, they're running in a campaign that they enjoy to the fullest. If anything I feel sorry for your players cause their DM needs to grow a spine. Rule -1 is a joke. Any DM that's worth a damn has a stable of players that ain't going nowhere and they know it.
Olskool 12-11-06, 03:30 PM	Very interesting. I am curious, now. Would you ever consider urinating on one of your players if they brought up game material that displeased you? No. On a related note though, I do rub my player's faces in it when they urinate on the floor. Like I said before, you've always gotta be training them.
pres_man 12-11-06, 03:46 PM	Rule -1 is a joke. Any DM that's worth a damn has a stable of players that ain't going nowhere and they know it. I'm ashamed to say I'm not up on my animal-husbandry, do you keep sheep in a stable or a pen?
Crust 12-11-06, 03:51 PM	No. On a related note though, I do rub my player's faces in it when they urinate on the floor. Like I said before, you've always gotta be training them. Would you consider yourself a "player whisperer"? :rofl:
a_psh 12-11-06, 04:00 PM	No need to feel sorry for my players, they're running in a campaign that they enjoy to the fullest.Stockholm Syndrome.
a_psh 12-11-06, 04:52 PM	I'm going to address the stuff said by the guy with the glasses and cross-shaped earing in the video than Oldskool's comments here, because I think they both represent the same kind of style, but that guy talked about it in more detail and seemed more sincere. I encourage everyone with a decent connection to watch those two YouTube snippets real quick. Anyway... That guy with the little cross earing in the gaming store... What the ****ing ****? He's very calm and sure of his own GM skills, but so... I dunno, oblivious? The whole clip about the girl and "getting into her head" was the epitome of Not Getting It. He pretends to be fair and impartial while arranging a giant railroad, proud of his ability to dupe the players. When people leave his games because they either wise up to the railroad or just don't like where it's going, he takes that to mean the game is too intense and psychological for them. Yeah, being raped by demons is intense. But it's not a good kind of "intense". It's not a productive kind of "intense". Having the GM force you into that situation is pretty close to downright sadism. "I can entertain 50 people for hours," he says. Y'know what? I'm proud of the fact that I would never even dream of trying to do that. My ideal gaming group is three people. In D&D specifically, it's 4-5. I just don't want more people. Because I'm not there just to hear myself talk. I want to have a conversation through play. The people at the table are my friends and I want to get to know them better through the way they express themselves creatively. That takes time and focus. You can't have a friendly chat with 20 people in the room; you shouldn't try to play an RPG that way, either. I dunno, he comes off as a decent guy at first, but his attitude is just quintessentially... wrong.
starfire311 12-11-06, 05:15 PM	No, see, you didn't understand my post. I will boot a player if he insists on being a pain in my ass. I don't have to boot him if he doesn't trust me because I have the rules and guidlines to run a fair and consistent game. I have no reason to cheat any player. I never said that my players are always trying to cheat me (read the damn lines :ahem: ). I said at times it can happen. Big difference. I suggest you actually read what is written instead of trying to translate it into your warped point of view. Yes, I have been burned by players in the past and it has taught me to be a better DM by learning from the mistakes I made by allowing certain thing to be had by said players. I no longer play with those players because we both moved on to other groups. For someone who has been playing since 1986 you have a real hard time with reading comprehension. Well if you don't feel they are always trying to cheat you, then why are you never willing to trust them...When I ask a DM something and they say, because I say so, this IMO is the 1st warning sign that this will be bad game, since this DM will not discuss ideas, this is also the 1st sign of a DM that is unable to admit his mistakes, and yes every DM makes mistakes. If you can't trust a player to not metagame, then you can't play DnD. And being burned by players in the past has not taught you to be a better DM, it has taught you to be paranoid, just like you are acusing the players of being that can't take "becasue I says so" for an answer.
HamHam 12-11-06, 05:39 PM	I think olskool is funny.
On_the_wings_of_TPK 12-11-06, 05:40 PM	Just keep telling yourself that. I know it must be hard for you to believe, but in general, players want a competent DM, not a guidance counselor that's gonna hold their hand and telling them it's gonna be alright. If i tried out your new age ,point buy, player controlled, 4 encounter a day, psoinic half demon half whatever you want wnakfest style of gaming with them, that's when they'd run away. Players need a strong hand to rule them. Sorry if some DM hurt your little feelings in the past, but that's just the way it is. Just out of curiousity, what does point buy have to do with the price of tea in china? Instead of stamering like a dobering old fool, do you think you could try explaining your points with logic? i'm having a real hard time understanding how ensuring the mutual fun at the gaming table is a bad thing. I would also wonder why you would waste your time of your players if they were as bad as you say they are. Now before you all start, I'll clarify that. Just becuase i may disagree on what is and is not baalnced, does not mean i do not trust my players. I am however primarily responcible for the camapigns balance. that means that i have to to have a good grasp on what they can and can not do. I have to be able to this becuase A) it make sure they do not out class each other, and B) it makes it so i don't accedentally whipe them out with an unwinable encounter. A good example of this: Example A) i recently told a player that he could not use VOP for his monk. The reason being that it increased his power far above that of any of the other players. So much so that the power disparity would have made encounters extreemly difficult to balance to say the least. i could challenge him, however anyting that did would be gareented to be the DOOM of the rest of the party. I could challenge the rest of the party, but it would a cake-walk for him. Hense i disallowed. he disagreed with my assesment, howver. I listen to what he had to say, but in the end felt it was in the best interests of the game to disallow the feat. And so i did. Example B) I choose to not send that party up against an iron golem. The party had no adamantine weapons. they also focused on dealing damge through multiple attacks, and not one single concentrated blow. Thus they would not have been able to punch through its DR. Becuase of its immunity to magic the party wizard was useless against it. The golem had a special abilty witch made healing the damge it delt immpossible. They would not have been able to effectively hurt it, while it would have been able to cut them down within 5 rounds. Even though it a CR 10, anf they an 8th level party, with more loote then normal, it was completely unbalanced for them. And so i choose not to use themagainst that party. Oldskool? I'm curiouse what would happen if you opened the door to your stable? Do you sappose your life stock might escape? What if you didn't have to keep them in a stable? What if the players came back on their own accord?
bitnine 12-11-06, 06:07 PM	I think olskool is funny.I have to admit that I'm a bit enthralled with his viewpoint myself.
starfire311 12-11-06, 06:53 PM	Example A) i recently told a player that he could not use VOP for his monk. The reason being that it increased his power far above that of any of the other players. So much so that the power disparity would have made encounters extreemly difficult to balance to say the least. i could challenge him, however anyting that did would be gareented to be the DOOM of the rest of the party. I could challenge the rest of the party, but it would a cake-walk for him. Hense i disallowed. he disagreed with my assesment, howver. I listen to what he had to say, but in the end felt it was in the best interests of the game to disallow the feat. And so i did. Example B) I choose to not send that party up against an iron golem. The party had no adamantine weapons. they also focused on dealing damge through multiple attacks, and not one single concentrated blow. Thus they would not have been able to punch through its DR. Becuase of its immunity to magic the party wizard was useless against it. The golem had a special abilty witch made healing the damge it delt immpossible. They would not have been able to effectively hurt it, while it would have been able to cut them down within 5 rounds. Even though it a CR 10, anf they an 8th level party, with more loote then normal, it was completely unbalanced for them. And so i choose not to use themagainst that party. 1st I apolgize for going off-topic, perhaps this would have been beeter in a PM. TPK, I do realize that many of the stances you have taken are not entirely indictive of the actual game you play, and how you play it, they have been more philosophical discussions, and for the most part you have some well thought out arguments and I enjoy reading most of your posts, but these 2 points have me a bit confused. in the 1st point you say that you feel that VOP would unbalance your game, I couldn't argue with that untill your second point, get to that in a second. The reason I couldn't argue with it was because I assume you ran a low wealth game, In a standrad game the VOP is actually not worth it, you give up far more than you gain mechanically. However if I was running a low wealth game and someone wanted to play a monk with a VOP flavor, I would allow it, but I would tone done the abilities so they would be more inline with what I expected, or perhaps I would make the cost higher, maybe an XP cost or spending additional feats at higher levels. Now in the 2nd point you mention that your party has above average loot, thus making VOP even a bigger disadvantage than in a standard game, this would make VOP even weaker, so I really don't understand why you wouldn't allow it.
starfire311 12-11-06, 07:23 PM	This is my main and only account champ. And just because someone does'nt think DM's should'nt be subordinate to their players does'nt mean they're trolling. If the very idea of a DM run campaign is so scary to you, maybe you should examine that. Study your arts instead of studying me. no one said DMs should be subordinate, I claim they are equal to the Players, infact a DM is a player himself. He just has a different role, than the players plaing the PCs. And yes many of your posts are indicative of trolling. And yes I do study arts quite often, I am a fan of both the fine arts and martial arts. Oh you meant DMing, lol, I don't take a game seriously enough to call it an art, either fortunatly or unfortunatly, not sure, yes I enjoy DMing, yes I am quite good at it, yes I have learned a lot, mostly from my players, lately from these forums, over the last 20 years, and yes I will continue to learn more from these forums and from other players and DMs I meet. Every campiagn starts off with one goal, how to get the most enjoyment from it for me and my players, then I work from there, I always try to keep that number one goal in mind, whenever I make a descision when setting up a campaign, whether it is me making it alone or with concent of the players, I try to ask myself, will this add to the enjoyment of the game, or will this hinder it. I always rule for increassing enjoyment, and against decreasing enjoyment, and about 50/50 on other decisions that I cannot tell if it will hinder or help. Many many times, including the current campaign world we are develpoing the decisions are made as a group, currently we have delegated different parts of the game to different people to develop, heck I dont even know if I will DM it, but I took the lead on develeping the houserules(will be putting together a list for all the players ot vote on when I have trimmed it) so it may be assumed I will, but personally I would love to play in the world, and since every member of my group is a DM, I bet I can get one of them to do it. You may see my style as coddling, if you ever played in my game I doubt you would feel that way, I try my best to challenge the players to the best of my ability while still being fair. But what I do do that you may not be used to is I treat all the players how I would like to be treated, if I want to be trusted and respected I trust and respect each of them, I give respect freely to everyone, and it is up to them to lose it.
bitnine 12-11-06, 08:02 PM	If i tried out your new age ,point buy, player controlled, 4 encounter a day, I don't suppose you might be capable of articulating your objection to point buy? I would quite honestly love to hear it. Also, if it would not be too much trouble, I don't suppose you could favor us with an example of what you would say to a player that brough up point buy - that is, if it wouldn't break the CoC.
starfire311 12-11-06, 08:10 PM	I don't suppose you might be capable of articulating your objection to point buy? I would quite honestly love to hear it. Also, if it would not be too much trouble, I don't suppose you could favor us with an example of what you would say to a player that brough up point buy - that is, if it wouldn't break the CoC. see, now it is posts like this that are the reason I like you so much... This is why you are the master bitnine:bow: although, I must say, it seems like you are baiting.
a_psh 12-11-06, 08:24 PM	I want to see an "old school" gamer, or just anyone other than me, substantively comment on this:The game calls for lots of free table talk, with you and your fellow players calling out suggestions, kibitzing, and expanding on one another's descriptions. Don't shut your mouth just because your character's off the stage. And this:The game works even better when you bring your own metagame knowledge into your character's actions. If you're choosing between two possible, realistic actions for your character to take, don't limit your decision-making to your character's point of view. Choose the one that you prefer! And this:Also, to really deliver, the game shouldn't be isolated from your regular socializing, it should blend in. Chat about the game before and after, just like you would a book or TV show or movie. Chat about books and movies and catch up with each other, during! You can think of it as commercial breaks if you want, but tied to the social rhythms of your little group, not on TV's 15-minute cycle. If the game's worth playing, it'll draw your attention back in. Interspersing some time of just hanging out like friends can be pretty effective for maintaining a pace, prolonging suspense, and giving payoff moments real punch, so don't worry too much about digressions. (All recycled form my post #418.) Is the thing he's describing here like your game? If not, how is it better or worse?
bitnine 12-11-06, 08:37 PM	although, I must say, it seems like you are baiting.Really? Hm, I didn't mean for that to sound negative or provocatory - I am sincere in that I would very much like to hear his take on this particular issue. He clearly has a very strong opinion on the matter, and a good part of this is that I want to hear more and try to understand it. I do hope that he won't take offense at me asking a few questions.
starfire311 12-11-06, 08:55 PM	The game calls for lots of free table talk, with you and your fellow players calling out suggestions, kibitzing, and expanding on one another's descriptions. Don't shut your mouth just because your character's off the stage. I wouldn't say lots, and I would also say YMMV, but in my group it varies quite a bit, some weeks we get the game moving a lot other weeks it can falter and we get on side discussions, current topics: Heroes, BSG, lost, Spiderman 3 Movie, WoW, CoH, SGW, SWG, DDO, V:SOH, DC online, Comic books(civil war being in the lead, this week we had a discussion about the infinity gauntlet though), Neverwinter nights, WH 40k, RTS and tabletop, Democratic Nomination for presidency, Bush's mistakes, PvP, just about any cartoon(family guy and venture brothers were both brought up this week), Football(notably fantasy football), Work, Vacation plans, family... actually I think all of these topics came up at some point between 12pm and 11:30pm when I went home yesterday. TBH I really don't care how much the game moves, as long as we are all having fun, and in general we manage to stay on the game and keep it moving, I am ussually the one that reminds everyone to get back on track even if I am not DMing, if I am in a talkitive mood then we can get sidetracked for upto an hour at a time, especially when we order food or take any kinda break like that. The game works even better when you bring your own metagame knowledge into your character's actions. If you're choosing between two possible, realistic actions for your character to take, don't limit your decision-making to your character's point of view. Choose the one that you prefer! Surprisingly I agree to a point with this, metagaming is required to play the game, but in general I think it is better for you to play the game from your characters persepctive than from your perspective. Also, to really deliver, the game shouldn't be isolated from your regular socializing, it should blend in. Chat about the game before and after, just like you would a book or TV show or movie. Chat about books and movies and catch up with each other, during! You can think of it as commercial breaks if you want, but tied to the social rhythms of your little group, not on TV's 15-minute cycle. If the game's worth playing, it'll draw your attention back in. Interspersing some time of just hanging out like friends can be pretty effective for maintaining a pace, prolonging suspense, and giving payoff moments real punch, so don't worry too much about digressions. I dont agree, I dont thin the game works better when tehre are distractions like this, in general the game runs much smoother when everyone is focused on it, however, I also realize that me and my friends like socializing and catching up with each other. just as much as gaming sometimes more, so while the game may move along better without these distractions, it is sometimes more fun to have them, and really, we are all there to have fun, and we put that ahead of the game, and yes I speak for my whole group on this issue, we have discussed it before, when I felt we were possibly getting too many off topic discussion. I didn't have a problem with them, but I thought perhaps some of the players did, and I wanted to get it out in the open if they did.
Olskool 12-11-06, 08:56 PM	I don't suppose you might be capable of articulating your objection to point buy? I would quite honestly love to hear it. Also, if it would not be too much trouble, I don't suppose you could favor us with an example of what you would say to a player that brough up point buy - that is, if it wouldn't break the CoC. My problems with point buy: 1.It's archaic, a holdover from a less enlightened age of gaming. 2. It's not fair, if my players want to have a good time rolling, who am I to stand in their way? 3. It's as dull as... man, it's just dull. 4. No one's ever stood over another player's shoulder and said "damn! nice point buy there son. That was well done, nice adding and subtracting." 5. I said no point buy, I'm the DM, and that's what's up. 6. Point buy makes the game an autocratic exercise in futility before it even starts. Starting a game with point buy is like telling your players: There will be no uncertainty in this game. It is perfectly balanced. I know what's going to happen over the course of the campaign and neither fate, nor you the players have any say over what happens. Point play kills uncertainty which then kills fun. Pretty elementary.
Comus 12-11-06, 09:13 PM	My problems with point buy: 1.It's archaic, a holdover from a less enlightened age of gaming. I am now laughing uncontrollably. Thank you. That has just made my day. :rofl:
Magnus_the_Mad 12-11-06, 09:18 PM	please just go away, you are clearly just trolling now, just about everything you have said is false, and a lie or serious exageration, you only created this account so you can come on here and act like an idiot, without worrying about getting your main account banned. LOL, comming from you?! :rofl: Dude, you can't even comprehend other peoples posts when they are trying to make valid points and you have the nerve to tell this guy to go away?! Take your own advice . Ever since you started responding to my threads you have been making up things that I've apparently said. While I think the guy is a total idiot for his line of thinking, at least Olskool is saying what he means and isn't butchering other peoples posts into what he wants them to read. You lose at the forums bud and don't try to argue different.
deadDMwalking 12-11-06, 09:28 PM	General reminder to keep it civil, people. We can't say that one style of gaming is good and one is bad. While we might not think we'd enjoy a game with someone here on the boards, the important thing is that the players in that game enjoy it. If Oldskool says his players enjoy his game, trust that he is telling the truth. If you don't think you'd like the game, you can say so, but it shouldn't involve telling him to shut his mouth (or anyone to shut their mouth). For better or for worse, we're all playing D&D. While we have a lot of different takes on how the game should be played, we should all at least agree that the game SHOULD BE PLAYED. With that in mind, don't get too worried about the differences. As far as the authority of the DM, I do think Wings of TPK gave a pretty good synopsis of it. Every DM has some authority or the game doesn't work. The question is how much authority is best? I'm still of the opinion that a strong DM is usually better than a system where the players come up with most of the information. It may be that I still don't understand how it works, or I've never played anything like it that I enjoy. I definitely think the conversation has a lot of ground still to cover, but I think it can do it in a civil fashion. I'm known for wishful thinking.
a_psh 12-11-06, 10:11 PM	We can't say that one style of gaming is good and one is bad.Why? If "style" refers to issues of social contract, you can definitely talk about what works and what doesn't, right?
pres_man 12-11-06, 10:49 PM	trust that he is telling the truth. Why? If half of the DMs here don't trust their players, why should I trust some stranger on this site?
WizO_Cat 12-11-06, 11:29 PM	Ok, just a reminder to all to: 1) Keep the posts polite. One can disagree with a point and still be polite about it. 2) Keep the posts on the subject of the thread, not other guests. 3) Let's keep the sarcasm and the angst off of the boards. I'd hate to bust people for Baiting, but disciplinary actions will be taken if it continues. Why? If "style" refers to issues of social contract, you can definitely talk about what works and what doesn't, right? I think his point is that determining what "works" is extremely subjective and really not about the physical ability to have the discussion. Hey, I know I gamed with groups that do things even outside what is commonly highlighted on these boards to never "work", but it's worked for our group and we've had a blast doing it.
Olskool 12-11-06, 11:52 PM	I am now laughing uncontrollably. Thank you. That has just made my day. :rofl: Funny as you may find it, it happens to be true. Around these parts nobody's used point buy for years. It just stressed people out, and everyone decided to just roll characters like always from then on out. This was way back in the year 20 ought 3. So since point buy has'nt been used in years, my group considers it an archaic outdated method of character creation. Of course, even if they wanted point buy I would'nt allow it in my game.So it all works pretty good.
deadDMwalking 12-11-06, 11:55 PM	Cat's got my point. No matter how crazy, stupid, or weird we think a game sounds, the fact of the matter is we don't have to play in it. If the players for that game are happy and having fun, more power to them. Now, I can have a game described to me and say "I'm glad I'm not in that game. I'd hate it." But I can't say "You shouldn't play that way. Your way is stupid". The obvious rejoinder would be "It isn't stupid because we like it this way". I have no illusions that my players are oppressed, and some revolutionary on these boards is going to cause them all to rise up against me. I'm not going to end up on a guillotine saying "Let them play Epic characters!" There very well can be a social contract. The DM should help make sure the game is fun. If the game isn't fun, people won't play. I think we can all agree on that point. The only point of contention is really "what makes the game fun?" There are a lot of ways to approach that question. What makes the game fun for a DM? For a Player? For the group? My thought is that a lot of the DMs that "diversify" their authority don't get much enjoyment out of the aspects of the game that are really thought of as "the DMs domain". If DMing is a chore, having the group share some of the responsibility is a great way to keep it from becoming a drag for one person. If a DM has experienced burn-out before, turning to a more "open" creative session might be a good idea. But for DMs that really enjoy coming up with adventures, world building, the mechanics of creating NPCs, and designing things knowing that the players will enjoy the surprise - well, there's no reason to make changes to a system that is working for the enjoyment of all involved.
deadDMwalking 12-12-06, 12:05 AM	Why? If "style" refers to issues of social contract, you can definitely talk about what works and what doesn't, right? To clarify further, you can only talk about what works for any individual group of people. Sometimes something works in one group, but not in another. Does it mean that the system is "wrong"? Whatever the differences are between the group, there are so many "aspects" to a game of D&D that instantly declaring that there is ONE BEST WAY and all other ways of doing things is WRONG doesn't make much sense to me. I try to take a practical approach. What works is good. What doesn't work is bad. And this requires flexibility (not a trait I'm well known for) to a degree. Sometimes you have to abandon what works in one situation and try something else. Sometimes it makes a better game. Sometimes what worked before makes a lousy game. And doing what works is good for everyone, and while that can change from group to group, that actual premise should remain the same across the board. Why? If half of the DMs here don't trust their players, why should I trust some stranger on this site? While he might be lying about what his players like or don't like, you lack any kind of proof. It is just as likely that he doesn't have players or that they do like the game. Despite what you may have interpreted from the posts here, the assumption should be that if a player doesn't like the game, they'll leave. You don't have to convince a DM that he is doing a bad job on behalf of his players. If they don't care enough to do it themselves, he must be at least doing a decent job. If it works for his group, it is good. That doesn't mean you have to try it in yours. It also doesn't mean you have to say that his opinions are right (at least not for your game, but they could be for his). The reason you can trust what people say on this site (whether they're telling the truth or not) is that it doesn't hurt you to assume it is true. It can allow you to work through an argument and find the "solution", even if someone were playing devil's advocate.
Magnus_the_Mad 12-12-06, 01:19 AM	To clarify further, you can only talk about what works for any individual group of people. Sometimes something works in one group, but not in another. Does it mean that the system is "wrong"? Whatever the differences are between the group, there are so many "aspects" to a game of D&D that instantly declaring that there is ONE BEST WAY and all other ways of doing things is WRONG doesn't make much sense to me. I try to take a practical approach. What works is good. What doesn't work is bad. And this requires flexibility (not a trait I'm well known for) to a degree. Sometimes you have to abandon what works in one situation and try something else. Sometimes it makes a better game. Sometimes what worked before makes a lousy game. And doing what works is good for everyone, and while that can change from group to group, that actual premise should remain the same across the board. While he might be lying about what his players like or don't like, you lack any kind of proof. It is just as likely that he doesn't have players or that they do like the game. Despite what you may have interpreted from the posts here, the assumption should be that if a player doesn't like the game, they'll leave. You don't have to convince a DM that he is doing a bad job on behalf of his players. If they don't care enough to do it themselves, he must be at least doing a decent job. If it works for his group, it is good. That doesn't mean you have to try it in yours. It also doesn't mean you have to say that his opinions are right (at least not for your game, but they could be for his). The reason you can trust what people say on this site (whether they're telling the truth or not) is that it doesn't hurt you to assume it is true. It can allow you to work through an argument and find the "solution", even if someone were playing devil's advocate. Well put indeed. I know while posting things can get away from us at times (yes, I mean me but there are a few others in this thread as well). I think you have stated rather well exactly how I feel about gaming in your posts (TPK, as well). While I don't think it to be wrong to write and create a whole world ahead of time with plenty of plot hooks and pre-established npcs with motives, some simply do. Who's right? Both parties of course. Because in the end what works is what both the DM and the players want out of the game, not one party vs another. For me, it's a trust thats given to me by my group and it's a trust that I do not violate. They trust me to be fair, consistent and enjoyable while behind the DMs screen. I trust them to show up and game according to the rules that we play by. Most of all, we are friends and trust each other in most situations so gaming is just that much more enjoyable and fun in the end anyway.
pres_man 12-12-06, 01:44 AM	The reason you can trust what people say on this site (whether they're telling the truth or not) is that it doesn't hurt you to assume it is true. It can allow you to work through an argument and find the "solution", even if someone were playing devil's advocate. No, I don't have to trust anyone, though I may have to work with assumptions that their statement is true. An assumption need not actually be true, it is merely something that is assumed to be true in order to derive some kind of logical deduction. EDIT: Oh yeah, I forgot to mention that I don't consider myself to be part of the " b-b-b- but my players will leave me" crowd, though I am part of the " b-b-b- but I'm not a jerk" crowd (not that I am saying anyone here is a jerk).
CharlieRock 12-12-06, 02:28 AM	What's wrong with point buy? It's what we used in our GURPS Atomic Horror adventure today. We rolled in our D&D games to be different. Some DMs seem to share the confusion as Elan does in this comic: http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0209.html Argh! I hadn't gotten that far into the series yet. Can't read .... must follow entire story .... :ahem: Probably "marks" the table before they get there. "This me table and me game. You challenge me, me smash you. Then me laugh at silly face you make." Now that is old school gaming, caveman style! hmmm <checks in GURPS Stone Age> ;) I think olskool is funny. Sometimes differences are amusing. More on that note after this: I want to see an "old school" gamer, or just anyone other than me, substantively comment on this: Is the thing he's describing here like your game? If not, how is it better or worse? Better or worse implies that one is playing in a 'wrong' method. Or simply 'less right'. Look; I can watch the same exact movie in three different ways/settings and the experience changes mega: At home with MrsCharlie. At a friends house. At a theatre. Each one could be fun (though ,personally I avoid movie houses of late) and yield vastly different experiences, all from the same movie. Analogy applied to D&D: use the same adventure module (bear with this, I know you hate them), with three different gaming groups. Yours would change/modify it to great extant. Just imagine two other varying degrees of modification for two other groups (or one with no changes at all) for simplicity. If all three had fun, then there is no 'better' or 'lesser' way from each to the next. That's going a little too close to the 'We are serious gamers' camp that stresses different values in gaming then I'm comfortable with. Why? If half of the DMs here don't trust their players, why should I trust some stranger on this site? I dunno, man. What joy would I get from screwing your game up? Really. I stand good chance of ruining it, you quitting (or another player from your team), one less role-playing gamer in the world, my beloved hobby one consumer closer to extinction. Maybe if I was that 'Dark Dungeons' guy in disguise, maybe (though I think that would be an over-estemation of that person's abilities in extreme). I dream of (eventually) getting a successful publication out one day. Squashing my audience in advance would *ahem* screw that up big time. ;) :cool:
Starchaserva 12-12-06, 02:43 AM	Every player has a different preffered style, just like every DM. Some players are jerks, just like some DMs are jerks. I have no problem with a DM telling me he doesn't allow a certain books as long as he doesn't have a problem that stems with a previous edition of it. For example, if you can tell me why you don't like the current Psionics Handbook without once referencing the old one, I won't complain. However, no Dm has the right to screw the game up and mess with his players for his own pleasure under any circumstance. Talk about that rule -1 to rule 1 all you want, but its ONE DAMN GAME, it's an equal thing, and only stupid DMs boil it down to an us vs. them mentallity. I don;t think any player should enter a game with the following mindset "this guy is going to try to royally **** over whatever character I make, so I have to powergame extra hard to survive" You can't win D&D unless you somehow manage to kill your DM, and you can't lose unless you somehow destroy the universe you were playing in
starfire311 12-12-06, 08:48 AM	LOL, comming from you?! :rofl: Dude, you can't even comprehend other peoples posts when they are trying to make valid points and you have the nerve to tell this guy to go away?! Take your own advice . Ever since you started responding to my threads you have been making up things that I've apparently said. While I think the guy is a total idiot for his line of thinking, at least Olskool is saying what he means and isn't butchering other peoples posts into what he wants them to read. You lose at the forums bud and don't try to argue different. I can comprehend fine, just ebcause I choose to read between the lines when you say, essentially that you don't have to trust your players because sometimes they are trying to cheat you... to mean that you don't trust your players because they are always trying to cheat you. Yes always is obviously not true, it was used almost as filler in that sentence, and shouldn't have been used at all, because it just allows you to attack my words rather than my point.... actually I would be better off not using words at all I guess, sense that is all you attack, if there was someway to get my point accrossed without them I would take that route instead. It boils down to you don't feel you have to trust your players, yet you feel they should trust you implicitly.
On_the_wings_of_TPK 12-12-06, 10:56 AM	@ Starfire311: Off topic--sorry I don't feel that VOP was inherently unbalanced or broken. Although it does assume a certain level of wealth for it to work. Too much wealth in the game, and it is a burden. Too little and it becomes really powerful. In that particular instance i felt it was too strong. After comparing his character to the rest of the party I discovered that he had double everything they did. It was partially a combination of race, classes, feats, and states. But what happened was VOP hieghten the character and it became too strong to be compatable with the rest of the group. Removing I felt did the least amount of damage to his concept, and so i nerfed what i preceived as the lesser of the evils. I may have been wrong, but I'd do it agian. All players in my games should be equal enough that they do not out shine any other players. Sometimes that means upping their power to be in line with the majority. other times it means lowering a players power level. Again though it is something that as a DM I feel I have a responciblity to do. And again something that I have to have the concent of the group to do. However un-verbal the concent is.
Olskool 12-12-06, 02:38 PM	Every player has a different preffered style, just like every DM. Some players are jerks, just like some DMs are jerks. I have no problem with a DM telling me he doesn't allow a certain books as long as he doesn't have a problem that stems with a previous edition of it. For example, if you can tell me why you don't like the current Psionics Handbook without once referencing the old one, I won't complain. However, no Dm has the right to screw the game up and mess with his players for his own pleasure under any circumstance. Talk about that rule -1 to rule 1 all you want, but its ONE DAMN GAME, it's an equal thing, and only stupid DMs boil it down to an us vs. them mentallity. I don;t think any player should enter a game with the following mindset "this guy is going to try to royally **** over whatever character I make, so I have to powergame extra hard to survive" You can't win D&D unless you somehow manage to kill your DM, and you can't lose unless you somehow destroy the universe you were playing in My players prefer the me vs. them mentality. The harder the game is, the more they like it. They feel a greater sense of accomplishment when their enemies, in game, are trying their hardest to put them in the ground. So now I'm a stupid DM because I'm playing the way my players want to? Not every player wants a DM who'll cheat at a game to keep their characters alive. It sucks all the fun out of the game. You can win at D&D. you win by surviving. You lose by dying.That's how we play the game, and we have a great deal of fun doing it that way.
starfire311 12-12-06, 03:56 PM	My players prefer the me vs. them mentality. sorry, but I have never understood this mentality,as DM it would take me all of a fraction of a second to kill all the PCs... how is it that the PCs can possibly succeed if the DM wants them Dead, unless you are just really really bad at killing them. DM: So, you guys got all your characters rolled up, congrats, I created this new table to decide some random events, *rolls* 357, oh it says here that a meteor has hit the planet destroying all life on the planet. Looks like I win and you guys lose. PCs: What, you made chart with a random chance to destroy all life as a result on it. DM: actually every possible result ends in you all dying, I just figured it would be more fun for me to get to roll some dice.
TwistedPuppy 12-12-06, 04:17 PM	Well, my players like it when I have a me vs them mentality, and they return it - when I'm actively controlling NPCs/monsters in combat encounters. It starts and finishes with combat, though. It's one thing to make an encounter challenging and something to talk about. Something else to spend time trying to think of ways to completely shaft your players.
CharlieRock 12-12-06, 04:24 PM	Well, my players like it when I have a me vs them mentality, and they return it - when I'm actively controlling NPCs/monsters in combat encounters. It starts and finishes with combat, though. It's one thing to make an encounter challenging and something to talk about. Something else to spend time trying to think of ways to completely shaft your players. Quite true. :)
Crust 12-12-06, 04:40 PM	DM vs. player... That's not a good thing. Let me explain... The idea of "DM vs. player" is a way to describe a power-hungry DM who prefers to set up his players only to knock them down, and in no way suggests equality at the table. The whole "vs." idea works in certain situations (sports, fighting, and other real-world contests), but there is NEVER a contest between the DM and the player. There is no disagreeing with that, unless one chooses to embrace ignorance (or doesn't fully understand the DM/player relationship... or attempts to blur that relationship in the eyes of inexperienced players). Further, the DM and the player are not on the same playing field, so the idea of "DM vs. player" is a fallacy in itself. In a TRUE "DM vs. player" campaign (if such a thing even exists), the DM would always win, and I don't see how that's fun for the players (or the DM, really, unless the DM has fun hoarding power over others in the only way he/she is able). And saying that it's fun for the players does not mean that it's fun for the players.
Olskool 12-12-06, 04:51 PM	sorry, but I have never understood this mentality,as DM it would take me all of a fraction of a second to kill all the PCs... how is it that the PCs can possibly succeed if the DM wants them Dead, unless you are just really really bad at killing them. DM: So, you guys got all your characters rolled up, congrats, I created this new table to decide some random events, *rolls* 357, oh it says here that a meteor has hit the planet destroying all life on the planet. Looks like I win and you guys lose. PCs: What, you made chart with a random chance to destroy all life as a result on it. DM: actually every possible result ends in you all dying, I just figured it would be more fun for me to get to roll some dice. You just don't understand how it works, that's all. I don't want my my PCs to die. They don't want their characters to die. The NPCs and monsters that they oppose want them to die. See, as DM, you have to assume the role of everyone in your world. Including the players enemies. The PCs enemies don't pull their punches. It would be disrespectful to my players to play them any other way. If I did'nt play the their enemies to their vile, evil best, it would'nt be D&D. It would just be an exercise in co-operative storytelling, and you don't need the rules to do that. This is a game where players assume the roles of violent mercenaries and tomb robbers. If there's no risk of character death, you might as well just play something else. I repeat: If as DM, you are'nt trying to kill the PCs, you're not playing D&D. You're just acting out the parts to a prescripted story. You should just join a community theater or a writer's workshop if you want to do that.
Lethanic 12-12-06, 05:46 PM	My problems with point buy: 1.It's archaic, a holdover from a less enlightened age of gaming. 2. It's not fair, if my players want to have a good time rolling, who am I to stand in their way? 3. It's as dull as... man, it's just dull. 4. No one's ever stood over another player's shoulder and said "damn! nice point buy there son. That was well done, nice adding and subtracting." 5. I said no point buy, I'm the DM, and that's what's up. 6. Point buy makes the game an autocratic exercise in futility before it even starts. Starting a game with point buy is like telling your players: There will be no uncertainty in this game. It is perfectly balanced. I know what's going to happen over the course of the campaign and neither fate, nor you the players have any say over what happens. Point play kills uncertainty which then kills fun. Pretty elementary. SO wait . . . because you have the players CHOOSE their stats instead of letting random chunks of plastic select them, it means that the players don't have control, but if they put their stats at the whim of random chunks of plastic instead of under their own control, it indicates they have mroe control. .did I get that right? :confused: :confused:
Olskool 12-12-06, 06:31 PM	SO wait . . . because you have the players CHOOSE their stats instead of letting random chunks of plastic select them, it means that the players don't have control, but if they put their stats at the whim of random chunks of plastic instead of under their own control, it indicates they have mroe control. .did I get that right? :confused: :confused: First of all, they're not chunks of plastic. They're dice. Respect the tradition. And yes, I'm saying players have more control over their character's with dice instead of point buy. Every one who plays D&D has to submit to the whims of the dice. Again, respect the tradition. The dice leave your your character's fate unknown and mysterious. Some optional soulless archaic method of min/ max character generation does not. Back to topic though, I'm the DM. And one of the areas of the game in which I exercise my "player given " authority is to forbid point buy.Point buy and Psionics. And a whole bunch of other stuff too numerous to print in one post.
starfire311 12-12-06, 08:19 PM	Some optional soulless archaic method of min/ max character generation does not. . This is what kills me, and is one of the reasons I think all your posts are just jokes, why in the world would you call Point buuy archaic? I just started using it back in '02-'03 The die rolling is what is traditionally considored archiac, respect the tradition? Generally something that is new and different is not referred to as archiac. While things that are tradional may or may not be refered to as archiac.
starfire311 12-12-06, 08:23 PM	You just don't understand how it works, that's all. I don't want my my PCs to die. They don't want their characters to die. The NPCs and monsters that they oppose want them to die. See, as DM, you have to assume the role of everyone in your world. Including the players enemies. The PCs enemies don't pull their punches. It would be disrespectful to my players to play them any other way. If I did'nt play the their enemies to their vile, evil best, it would'nt be D&D. It would just be an exercise in co-operative storytelling, and you don't need the rules to do that. This is a game where players assume the roles of violent mercenaries and tomb robbers. If there's no risk of character death, you might as well just play something else. I repeat: If as DM, you are'nt trying to kill the PCs, you're not playing D&D. You're just acting out the parts to a prescripted story. You should just join a community theater or a writer's workshop if you want to do that. I don't want my my PCs to die. I repeat: If as DM, you are'nt trying to kill the PCs, you're not playing D&D. so are you admitting you are not playing D&D?
TwistedPuppy 12-12-06, 10:13 PM	I don't want the PCs in my game to die either, but when I control the NPCs/monsters, yes, I'm trying to kill them. And if the baddies aren't trying to kill the PCs, I agree with Olskool that you're coddling your players. Unless, of course, the bad guys have more sinister objectives than just killing the PCs. :devil: I may not agree with much else about how he does things, but if it works for his group and the players have a good time, what does it matter?
starfire311 12-12-06, 11:40 PM	I don't want the PCs in my game to die either, but when I control the NPCs/monsters, yes, I'm trying to kill them. see I guess the difference for me is that when I control monsters/npcs they are not necessarily wanting to kill the PCs, I play them as I think they would respond, and if the most likely response for the monster is to attack the PC then I play the monster attacking the PC to the best of my ability, I am still not trying to kill the PCs then either, the monster is... If I wanted to kill the PCs they would already be dead. I am not saying that by I want them to live either, I try to play it as unbiased as I can. If there is a TPK so be it, I have had a few in my time, they were all memorable and I can't think of any that we didnt havea good laugh about, so I think they were enjoyable.
pres_man 12-12-06, 11:45 PM	Yeah, I agree with playing opponents in an appropriate fashion. Not just trying to defeat the party. I mean if it is a group of animals and it is doing all kinds of complex stategy, something is wrong there with how the DM is running the encounter. Generally, most TPKs are results of poor imagination on a DM's part. Animals will get a kill and try to leave with it to eat. More intelligent opponents will try to capture the rest of their opponents after the first few are killed, for perhaps worse things later (why did the mindflayer capture you? why do you think?)
starfire311 12-13-06, 12:02 AM	Yeah, I agree with playing opponents in an appropriate fashion. Not just trying to defeat the party. I mean if it is a group of animals and it is doing all kinds of complex stategy, something is wrong there with how the DM is running the encounter. Generally, most TPKs are results of poor imagination on a DM's part. Animals will get a kill and try to leave with it to eat. More intelligent opponents will try to capture the rest of their opponents after the first few are killed, for perhaps worse things later (why did the mindflayer capture you? why do you think?) Yeah thats true, but sometimes TPKs just happen, one memorable one was when we had a lot of bad die rolls to a spell that hit everyone, we all failed our save, and we all died the battle had been going for ahwile so we were all low anyway, and 1 persone was done, another when was due to a Frenzied berserker in the midst, yeah some friend...
a_psh 12-13-06, 01:01 AM	You're just acting out the parts to a prescripted story.Prescripted? Didn't we just spend like 6 pages on how scripts are evil?
Olskool 12-13-06, 02:07 AM	Prescripted? Didn't we just spend like 6 pages on how scripts are evil? Yeah, but it's not like you convinced me or anything over the course of those 6 pages. Besides, Point Buy = Lack of uncertainty= A general feeling that everything is pre ordained , or pre scripted.
a_psh 12-13-06, 03:30 AM	Yeah, but it's not like you convinced me or anything over the course of those 6 pages.It's kinda disingenuous to label anyone who disagrees with your style, especially when they specifically disagree with you prewriting the important things, as running along a "prescripted story". Besides, Point Buy = Lack of uncertainty= A general feeling that everything is pre ordained , or pre scripted.There's other threads for that. As long as we're here, I don't give a rat's ass about character generation methods, other than "makes a character I actually want to play." And that mostly depends on how interactions between group members shape the flavor and crunch of a character (what creative content is allowed, what's encouraged, what's proscribed, and how people come to that decision, and whether everyone's happy with the decisions that are made) rather than what specific rules you get to use to pick your stats.
Archtyrant Terevoth 12-13-06, 03:47 AM	My problems with point buy: 1.It's archaic, a holdover from a less enlightened age of gaming. 2. It's not fair, if my players want to have a good time rolling, who am I to stand in their way? 3. It's as dull as... man, it's just dull. ... Odd, because I hold the first three as reasons why rolling for stats is bad. Fun: Your character starting ability scores go with you, well forever. If you roll crappy, then that means your character sucks... forever. I mean seriously, there's no way to bring yourself back on par wtih a guy who rolled well, and your only alternatives are to play a suboptimal character for the rest of the campaign or to just kill yourself and reroll. Yeah, it's fun for the guy who happened to roll really well, but for everyone else, you're constantly asking yourself if you could get a better character just by slitting your own throat. Not all that fun. Archaic: Rolling is a mechanic that people did at the time because they couldn't think of a better system. It was the first system for making characters in RPGs, if that isn't archaic then I don't know what is. Dull: Yep, another crappy collumn of stats, do I have to keep this character long enough to have him commit suicide or can I just roll another collumn right now? So yeah, rolling for stats just sucked period. I'm really of the opinion that rolling for anything that could affect your character permanently, like hit points, ability scores and so on, is a bad idea. There just shouldn't be a screwed-for-life trap that you can accidentally fall into.
CharlieRock 12-13-06, 04:21 AM	This is what kills me, and is one of the reasons I think all your posts are just jokes, why in the world would you call Point buuy archaic? I just started using it back in '02-'03 The die rolling is what is traditionally considored archiac, respect the tradition? Generally something that is new and different is not referred to as archiac. While things that are tradional may or may not be refered to as archiac. Well, if you consider RPGs to be the offspring of wargames (as many gamers do) then point-buy actually is older then dice rolled stats. Since ,in wargames, you 'purchased' pre-made 'characters' using a number of points (usually equal to the number of points your opponent is using).
CharlieRock 12-13-06, 04:29 AM	So yeah, rolling for stats just sucked period. I'm really of the opinion that rolling for anything that could affect your character permanently, like hit points, ability scores and so on, is a bad idea. There just shouldn't be a screwed-for-life trap that you can accidentally fall into. So rolling for other things that effect your character permanently is a bad idea also? Like, saving throws, critical hits, trap-detection, any spot/listen check that you could have avoided being ambushed from. Why are these 'permanent status effecting' rolls more important then your attribute rolls. If any dice roll should be the most important in a game, IMO, it should be the ones that create and refine your character. Character generation is a group decision though. As a DM I wouldn't force one way or another on my team. Point-buy does make it easier to DM the team (but that is not necessarily a good/bad thing, because if I really wanted easier I wouldn't DM at all).
a_psh 12-13-06, 04:36 AM	Like, saving throws, critical hits, trap-detection, any spot/listen check that you could have avoided being ambushed from. Why are these 'permanent status effecting' rolls more important then your attribute rolls.Well, the minimal hope is that these occur in dramatic situations. Whereas you just kinda get hp when you rest at an inn or make camp for the night... not exactly a climactic moment there, is it? You could say that rolling for stats is more exciting, but, honestly, short of the example where you actually play through a scene about why you got the stats you got as part of character creation, I've never found it to be very interesting. Especially when you were playing the lottery (with that rather low chance to get an actually noteworthy stat, if you used the standard rules) in AD&D. I will agree that the character generation system needs to be quick, flexible, and promote some kind of understanding of the character you just made, however, and that anything other than that (such as how much fortune is involved) is secondary. But we're getting off-track here. Rolling for hp has little to do with what kind of a GM you are. There are already several threads on the same forum about point-buy, &c. Let's keep that discussion over there.
Airos 12-13-06, 04:40 AM	As of late I seem to have been coming of as too hard lined. I'm not really as hard lined as I have been presenting myself. So I've given this some thought, and I hope this comes out the way I mean it too. Authority: The DM is awarded a certain amount of authority by the group they DM for. The exact amount of authority given to the DM varies from group to group. But non the less it is there. (It may be nothing more then the authority to determine whom the monster attacks, and what traps are in witch room of the dungeon, but that is still authority.) This authority is used by the DM to in effect govern the group. This done through house rules, limitting source material, or not, and running the world, etc, etc. The DM however governs with concent of the players. With out the players concenting to giving the DM the authority, there would be no game, or DM. This acts as a check to the powers of the DM. I.E Rule -1. It is important ot remeber that along with rule -1 is rule -2. Like the players, the DM is under no obligation to show up either, and just as easily "vote with his/her feet" as any player can. :confused: Power? Authority? Governing? I'm not quite sure what kind of game you run, but it doesn't sound like a game to me. As a DM, I have a responsibility to my players to make sure that the game is both fun and functioning. I have a responsibility to see to it that the encounters are balanced against the players. I have a responsibility to insure my players do not become upset when I'm using material that they could have access to, (By this I mean feats, spells, items, classes and races. It's unfair for me to tell them they can't play a Catfolk from Races of the Wild, then send them to the village of Catfolk), either by allowing them access to the same material I plan on using, or by talking with them and explaining why this isn't available to them as PCs. And if I don't allow them something as players, I make sure there's something that is to serve as a balancing point. I'm not fond of running evil campaigns, so Book of Vile Deeds is primarily a DMs tool. It then becomes my responsibility to allow them access to the Book of Exalted Deeds to have a fighting chance against all the BBEG's. This kinda makes the DM a first amoung equals. The closest anology I can think of is the Canadian Prime minister. The primeminster leaders the government with concent of the other elected minister in the house of commons. Becuase of this he is awarded certain policy mking powers. The PM can make laws, recend old laws, decide to go to war or not, etc, etc. If the PM looses a crucial pieve of legislation (All legisilation is voted into power by the house of commons) then it is considered a no confadence vote, and the parliment is desolved and a general election is called. A Dm has the granted power to; limit source material, make house rules, make a final ruling on a rule, etc, etc. However this power is given to him/her by the party. If the party deicdes that they do not like what the DM is doing they can can vote with their feet by not playing. This is ware the politics differ. The DM can just as easily find a nother group, or recend their previouse desion. The players can decide to live with it, find a new group, or find a new DM. Here's another place D&D and politics differ: D&D is about having fun! The Prime Minister of Canada has millions of people he has to please, supporters he has to face at the polls if he doesn't do the things he promised, detractors he has to face if they get any chance to put him in a negative light, not to mention maintaining positive relations with the rest of the world to make sure nobody tries to, oh I dunno, bomb them! A DM is a guy or gal who's sitting down with a small group of like-minded individuals to play a game that they all enjoy playing. If a DM makes a couple of bad calls, his/her friends will sit down and talk with him/her about it and come to a compromise. If the PM makes a bad couple of calls, people can die. As for how much authority the DM has varies from group to group. Although i feel that generally the extreems should be avoided. A DM that allows everything the players want, whenever they want is going to run into problems. That depends, though. If the players want everything to a munchkin level, then there's bigger problems. No DM, without careful examination of what kind of campaign he/she is going to be running in the long term, should allow each player 4 rings, each with 4 wishes, no matter how badly they ask. If the players have a sense of balance as well as the DM, then you should be allowed to grant the players what they want without any problems. If the players all want +5 weapons, tell them the balancing factor will be encounters with higher ACs. If the players want a Dragon companion, tell them the balancing factor will be that the Dragon will act exactly like it should. It will not be told what to do, it will demand more and more of the party's treasure as payment/tribute, they will not be able to take this thing into town as villagers won't know the difference between good dragons and evil dragons, it will get hungry and bored when the leave it at the outskirts of town while they shop and it will start eating farm animals or stray villagers. If they want the headaches that come with their requests, let them have it. Sappose the DM allows material s/he is not familiar with, or doesn't understand. This new material may seem too powerful for the DM, in responce the DM feels that they need to come up with a way to soft nerf it in order to challenge the party. Such as say feeling that the eldritch blast ability is too strong, and constantly placing the party in AMFs. Or feeling that the a ninjas quick strike is too powerful, so now the party finds themselves against undead and constructs, all night long, all the time. This, in my opinion, is one of the only reasons a DM should be declining to allow something. But there is a difference between a DMs perception that something is too powerful for his/her campaign due to poor planning, and something actually being too powerful for his/her campaign. I would understand restricting item creation in a low-magic world, because if there aren't magic items to be had, player's shouldn't be making them at every stop. However, banning Forge Ring because you don't want your players making rings of wishes is just plain silly. Like wise though the DM may not be able to adequietly challenge a party, becuase of their strength. Every challenge is a cake-walk. Soon the players will get board, and the camapign can get stale. worse is when in responce to the party being precieved as over powered, the DM tries to crank up the power. Two things happen here: A) The DM over does it, and the party is whiped out. B) The party easily over comes the challenge, and games even more power. (Thorugh wealth, and/or XP) Either way the blow out factor eventually comes into play. The party soon finds themselves in an unwinnable encounter. They can't run becuasse by the time they realise they should it to late. :confused: Huh? No, I'm sorry, this makes no sense. Given the number of monsters/races/templates/classes/skills/feats/spells/items/traps there are, there's no excuse for a DM not being able to adequately challenge the players. Even if the DM has to resort to non-combat encounters to challenge them, it's still a challenge by the book. Furthermore, a DM shouldn't be allowing the party to "gain more power" from an encounter that was a cakewalk. If it didn't challenge them, then it's not a challenge. No XP, no treasure. The DM in the above situation should decide on some combat encounters, and place the "rewards", (treasure and XP) away from the battle. If the players breeze through the combat, then they should have a challenging encounter in the form of puzzles and traps to get the rewards. If the players are challenged by the combat, then there's little or no need to "withhold" the rewards from them. Otherwise, this is just poor DMing. Another side thing is that, maybe the player *is* bending a rule. Uusing it not in the way it was intended to be used, or maybe forgetting a slight balancing factor. Not saying they are nessiarily cheating, but maybe just misinterpriting, or forgetting something. Thus to avoid this, the DM has a responciblity to restrict material to only that witch they are familiar and comfortable with. Wrong! If a player is "bending" a rule, the DM has a responsibility to deal with that player. Banning Rogues because the DM wasn't sure when they get their sneak attack is poor planning by the DM. Banning item creation because one player "forgot" to pay his XP costs is penalizing the other players. The other extreem to this is not cool either. This is ware you have the DM restricting material just to ham string his/her players. their the type of DM that you find sitting behind their screen screaming red faced at their players, that they are the Dungeon MASTER!!!! Both extreems should be avoided, and when not can cuase groups to break down. And the fun to leak out of the game like water from a paper bag. I can't argue the point that a DM that's purposefully weakening his players just for the sake of being in control is, in fact, a bad DM.
CharlieRock 12-13-06, 04:45 AM	Well, the minimal hope is that these occur in dramatic situations. Whereas you just kinda get hp when you rest at an inn or make camp for the night... not exactly a climactic moment there, is it? Depends on who I am resting with (at the inn or camp) :tie: You could say that rolling for stats is more exciting, but, honestly, short of the example where you actually play through a scene about why you got the stats you got as part of character creation, I've never found it to be very interesting. Especially when you were playing the lottery (with that rather low chance to get an actually noteworthy stat, if you used the standard rules) in AD&D. I will agree that the character generation system needs to be quick, flexible, and promote some kind of understanding of the character you just made, however, and that anything other than that (such as how much fortune is involved) is secondary. I was actually thinking of trying something like that out next start-up. (we use a style like it now, but far from mandatory. you really can just skip it if it doesn't interest you.) Your idea of like a pre-0 conflict. But we're getting off-track here. Rolling for hp has little to do with what kind of a GM you are. There are already several threads on the same forum about point-buy, &c. Let's keep that discussion over there. Well, I tried to tie it into how it related to DM authority :( (yeah, it was a shallow tie-in.as a DM it doesn't matter to me except how much of a challenge I'll get from the results.)
TwistedPuppy 12-13-06, 10:34 AM	I don't want the PCs in my game to die either, but when I control the NPCs/monsters, yes, I'm trying to kill them. if the most likely response for the monster is to attack the PC then I play the monster attacking the PC to the best of my ability, I am still not trying to kill the PCs then either, the monster is... We just said the same thing. DM controls monster - monster is trying to kill PCs - DM is therefore trying to kill PCs. When did I ever say that every NPC/monster the PCs encounter should end up in combat? Just because I didn't specify that the monsters/NPCs try to kill the PCs in combat situations?
bitnine 12-13-06, 11:16 AM	Heh, this reminds me of one conversation I had with a player when she joked that I wanted to kill the party. I responded that I was actually rooting for them, and she brought up a certain group of NPCs, to which I said: "Oh, those guys? Yeah, those guys ****ing hate y'all. They didn't really ask for my input in that, though. I'd probably tell them to settle the hell down." Personally, I like breaking character for a moment partially for such delineation. NPC: "I am Anagol the Manslayer, son of Akarel, and I will be your death!" Me: "[Gives NPC description.] And I don't know what exactly is up with him either, but he certainly seems pretty serious about it."
pres_man 12-13-06, 11:23 AM	Just because I didn't specify that the monsters/NPCs try to kill the PCs in combat situations? Not all combat situations need be lethal. There is why there is the whip, sap, bolas, net, etc. Not to mention unarmed strikes and taking a -4 to do non-lethal damage. Or heck even throwing in a merciful weapon on a rare occasion. And then there is all of those mind controlling spells, etc.
CharlieRock 12-13-06, 11:44 AM	Not all combat situations need be lethal. There is why there is the whip, sap, bolas, net, etc. Not to mention unarmed strikes and taking a -4 to do non-lethal damage. Or heck even throwing in a merciful weapon on a rare occasion. And then there is all of those mind controlling spells, etc. That's fer wussies! :P (j/k) Most (appx. 90% )of combat is lethal. :cool:
Olskool 12-13-06, 11:57 AM	Fun: Your character starting ability scores go with you, well forever. If you roll crappy, then that means your character sucks... forever. I mean seriously, there's no way to bring yourself back on par wtih a guy who rolled well, and your only alternatives are to play a suboptimal character for the rest of the campaign or to just kill yourself and reroll. Yeah, it's fun for the guy who happened to roll really well, but for everyone else, you're constantly asking yourself if you could get a better character just by slitting your own throat. Not all that fun. Dull: Yep, another crappy collumn of stats, do I have to keep this character long enough to have him commit suicide or can I just roll another collumn right now? . See, this again ties into DM authority. One of my rules is, if you ever suicide a charcater over bad stats, or any other metagame reason, you have to sit out the rest of the campaign. Join us in another 6 months or so when we start up the next campaign. I think it's a good rule. I let my players know it in advance, and so far, not a single character suicide.
Olskool 12-13-06, 12:14 PM	[QUOTE=a_psh;10902176]It's kinda disingenuous to label anyone who disagrees with your style, especially when they specifically disagree with you prewriting the important things, as running along a "prescripted story". Who said I prewrite things? And who's to say what the "important things" are. It seems to me that if you know what the "important things" are, then they must exist. If they exist, they must be pre written, at least in your, the DM's, mind. The only things I prewrite in a campaign are descriptions of locations, and NPC descriptions, stats, and M.O.s. It seems that you don't like DMs that prewrite the plots of their campaign. And since you don't like my DMing style, you lumped me in with that group as well, with no indication of whether I do that or not. Maybe writing the plot in advance, and heavy railroading works for some groups. It's not my preference, But that does'nt mean it's a bad idea. And just cause you wrote about it for 6 pages does'nt settle the issue. Not for me, and I'm sure not for the many DMs that actually do run their campaigns that way. Some players, ... most players, need to be led around by the proverbial ring through their nose. Players usually, whether they're aware of it or not, want someone to tell them what the right answer is. Too much freedom of choice can leave them uncomfortable and frustrated. I don't prescript stuff and railroad, but I certainly understand if other DMs have to do it. And I would'nt call their style "bad" because of it.
TwistedPuppy 12-13-06, 12:29 PM	Not all combat situations need be lethal. There is why there is the whip, sap, bolas, net, etc. Not to mention unarmed strikes and taking a -4 to do non-lethal damage. Or heck even throwing in a merciful weapon on a rare occasion. And then there is all of those mind controlling spells, etc. If you go back to my original post you'll see I noted that "unless the bad guys have something more sinister in mind than death." Come on pres_man, it isn't like you to deliberately take what people say and niche-pick.;) We both know there are exceptions to every rule. As a rule, unless the bad guys have orders to capture the PCs, they won't use non-lethal. If the BBEG is a wizard with 20 INT, he will give intelligent instructions :"bring them back alive if possible." Hey, he may be big, bad, and evil, but he is intelligent, and knows good help is hard to find. He's not going to sacrifice his people needlessly. (please note the word needlessly) Oh, yeah, all my BBEGs have memorized or contributed to The Top 100 Things I'd Do If I Ever Became An Evil Overlord (http://omega.med.yale.edu/~pcy5/misc/overlord1.htm)
Magnus_the_Mad 12-13-06, 08:53 PM	Who said I prewrite things? And who's to say what the "important things" are. It seems to me that if you know what the "important things" are, then they must exist. If they exist, they must be pre written, at least in your, the DM's, mind. The only things I prewrite in a campaign are descriptions of locations, and NPC descriptions, stats, and M.O.s. It seems that you don't like DMs that prewrite the plots of their campaign. And since you don't like my DMing style, you lumped me in with that group as well, with no indication of whether I do that or not. Maybe writing the plot in advance, and heavy railroading works for some groups. It's not my preference, But that does'nt mean it's a bad idea. And just cause you wrote about it for 6 pages does'nt settle the issue. Not for me, and I'm sure not for the many DMs that actually do run their campaigns that way. Some players, ... most players, need to be led around by the proverbial ring through their nose. Players usually, whether they're aware of it or not, want someone to tell them what the right answer is. Too much freedom of choice can leave them uncomfortable and frustrated. I don't prescript stuff and railroad, but I certainly understand if other DMs have to do it. And I would'nt call their style "bad" because of it. :clap: well put.
starfire311 12-14-06, 04:11 PM	See, this again ties into DM authority. One of my rules is, if you ever suicide a charcater over bad stats, or any other metagame reason, you have to sit out the rest of the campaign. Join us in another 6 months or so when we start up the next campaign. I think it's a good rule. I let my players know it in advance, and so far, not a single character suicide. It is funny that you would have to create a rule like that to prevent character suicides, I use point-buy and I dont have a rule like that, and I have never had a suicide. BTW, if someone ever did that, or wanted to do that, they could probably pull off the suicide without you ever noticing.
Olskool 12-14-06, 04:41 PM	It is funny that you would have to create a rule like that to prevent character suicides, I use point-buy and I dont have a rule like that, and I have never had a suicide. BTW, if someone ever did that, or wanted to do that, they could probably pull off the suicide without you ever noticing. Great . See, we got the same results. And no player in my game could pull some monkeyshines like that without me noticing. Bet. Just cause you get tricked by your players does'nt mean I fall for the same mess.
starfire311 12-14-06, 05:50 PM	Great . See, we got the same results. And no player in my game could pull some monkeyshines like that without me noticing. Bet. Just cause you get tricked by your players does'nt mean I fall for the same mess. nope, you can make your death seem completly believable, unless your DM is not trying to kill you. And I highly doubt any of my players would try to trick me, we just don't play that way, if someone didn't like their character, they would just tell me, and we would retire the character, and come up with some way to introduce a new one.
Olskool 12-14-06, 07:11 PM	nope, you can make your death seem completly believable, unless your DM is not trying to kill you. And I highly doubt any of my players would try to trick me, we just don't play that way, if someone didn't like their character, they would just tell me, and we would retire the character, and come up with some way to introduce a new one. I've done the same thing. Just cause I think the DMs calls should go undisputed you seem to think I'm some unreasonable jerk that does'nt talk to my players. It's impossible not to talk to your players if you play D&D with em. If someone was'nt feeling their character I'd say retire that guy and make one you're happy with. That should go without saying.
Man in the Funny Hat 12-16-06, 11:53 AM	It is funny that you would have to create a rule like that to prevent character suicides, I use point-buy and I dont have a rule like that, and I have never had a suicide.I have personally in the past, as have many/most of my players, suicided characters for reasons that have nothing to do with their stats nor how their stats were generated, and everything to do with the character simply not working out in the campaign/with the rest of the party as was originally envisioned/hoped - not as effective at a chosen gimmick maybe, or in-game circumstances not "playing along". Maybe the character concept is mechanically just fine, but is simply found to be boring/less interesting and fun than was anticipated when the concept was dreamed up. Most often, believe it or not, it is simply because the personality of the character that develops becomes problematic and rather than forcibly, arbitrarily alter the course of that development, to betray the "integrity" of that process if you will, it's preferred to simply dump the character entirely and start again with a new concept. It happens. Not all that much but it happens. I don't personally see the method of generating the scores as being a notable, attributable cause for suiciding. Now that's purely anecdotal but there it is. Way back as far as 1st Edition is the last time I can really recall when, "His ability scores are better than mine!" being an issue with any player I've gamed with. Again anecdotal, but it shows that this choice between random rolls and point buy remains that - a choice. Each has benefits and drawbacks, of which each of THOSE carries varying weight from player to player, group to group. And of those who state a preference for random rolls, "fairness", "player rights of creativity", and "level playing fields" seem to be non-issues. Last note: How this subject can consume TWO threads on the same boards to the tune of 20+ pages is just astounding.
pres_man 12-16-06, 01:00 PM	Most of my experience with bad stats and PC death haven't been suicides per say. It is more when the character with bad stats goes unconscious, the other players often decide not to try too hard to go and save them, where they might for a PC with better stats. Especially if the character has been dropped a couple of times before this. Oh, they won't just ignore the PC, but if there is a choice between other actions: healing themselves before they get attacked again or the unconscious guy or attacking someone or risking an AoO to save the guy, they usually don't choose to take risks in favor of the bad stat'ed PC. Often the player of the bad stat'ed PC is perfectly fine with this and will often suggest other actions, "Well that minotaur will attack you again and you're low on hp yourself, your character would probably heal himself first."
Lethanic 12-16-06, 04:37 PM	First of all, they're not chunks of plastic. They're dice. Respect the tradition. And yes, I'm saying players have more control over their character's with dice instead of point buy. Every one who plays D&D has to submit to the whims of the dice. Again, respect the tradition. The dice leave your your character's fate unknown and mysterious. Some optional soulless archaic method of min/ max character generation does not. Back to topic though, I'm the DM. And one of the areas of the game in which I exercise my "player given " authority is to forbid point buy.Point buy and Psionics. And a whole bunch of other stuff too numerous to print in one post. YOu realize your statement makes no sense? Randomly determining things through a method where the player has no control gives them more control? Perhaps you caoulsd actually explain this? ANd if you think that rolling dice for stats eliminates or even really reduces min/maxers, then you are living in the land of Oz.
Olskool 12-16-06, 04:46 PM	YOu realize your statement makes no sense? Randomly determining things through a method where the player has no control gives them more control? Perhaps you caoulsd actually explain this? ANd if you think that rolling dice for stats eliminates or even really reduces min/maxers, then you are living in the land of Oz. The players CHOOSE to roll. I let them roll. This gives them more control through rolling. They CHOOSE to roll stats, because point buy make them feel like thay're playing a video game, where some one who is'nt them decides what their characters going to be like. Maybe this makes no sense to you, but that's the way we've always played and had fun doing it. Also, we're playing a game where we pretend to be wizards and knights (though some pretend to be half mindflayer half demon psionic monkey robot artificers- but that's beside the point.). Aren't we ALL living in the land of OZ from time to time? Aren't we?
Lethanic 12-16-06, 05:33 PM	The players CHOOSE to roll. I let them roll. This gives them more control through rolling. They CHOOSE to roll stats, because point buy make them feel like thay're playing a video game, where some one who is'nt them decides what their characters going to be like. Maybe this makes no sense to you, but that's the way we've always played and had fun doing it. Also, we're playing a game where we pretend to be wizards and knights (though some pretend to be half mindflayer half demon psionic monkey robot artificers- but that's beside the point.). Aren't we ALL living in the land of OZ from time to time? Aren't we? . .half of the video games out there aso randomly determine many character attributes. So doesn't that mean ROLLING is being like a video game? YOu can fairly argue that you use it because you LIKE it, but arguing that it gives you more choice over the character? Eh. . .no? ANd how is someone NOT thenm deciding what their character will be like when THEY are choosing where the points are allocated? LAst time I checked, most GM's using a point buy didn't decide how the player spends them. In fact, the player does this, and allocated them in whatever manner is pleasing to THEM so. . . . .
pres_man 12-16-06, 05:39 PM	Some DMs let their players "choose" their character creation method in much the same way Ford allowed people to "choose" their color of model T. People can have the Model T in any colour--so long as it's black. Henry Ford US automobile industrialist (1863 - 1947) Good old style thinking.
dayrat 12-16-06, 05:40 PM	Purpose of DM 1) HE is there to help create a story. Every groups is different when it comes to story telling and how linear it should be, how open it should be, how character driven it should be; but the DM should always attempt to fabricate a storyline as the game unfolds. 2) HE is there to act as a referee. The DM makes sure that the rules are applied fairly to everyone at the table. When the rules don't take something into account, HE should invent a new mechanic on the fly. 3) HE is there to govern the setting. HE controls the actions of the NPCS, the weather, and everything else that forms the world.
Olskool 12-16-06, 05:59 PM	. .half of the video games out there aso randomly determine many character attributes. So doesn't that mean ROLLING is being like a video game? YOu can fairly argue that you use it because you LIKE it, but arguing that it gives you more choice over the character? Eh. . .no? ANd how is someone NOT thenm deciding what their character will be like when THEY are choosing where the points are allocated? LAst time I checked, most GM's using a point buy didn't decide how the player spends them. In fact, the player does this, and allocated them in whatever manner is pleasing to THEM so. . . . . I've never played a video game that randomly determines your stats. My players feel they have more choices with rolling than with point buy. But since you said I can't make that argument, I guess I did'nt just say that.DMs (not GMs) who use point buy decide how many points they give their players, so that's someone else deciding what your player's gonna be right there. All you ponit buy, power to players type people seem to frequently overlook that fact. But, like I said before, point buy is kinda off topic in this thread. There's a whole nother thread active about point buyright now, so if you want, we can argue about this over there.
Lethanic 12-16-06, 06:06 PM	Ok. . .sure. Other thread. Right.
Olskool 12-16-06, 06:15 PM	Ok. . .sure. Other thread. Right. meet you there.