Post/Author/DateTime	Post
#1 sphyre Jul 21, 2004 4:44:07	Dungeons and Dragons. What kind of game is it? Is it a game for munchkins? A min/maxing contest? An in depth story of true heroes? A combat simulation? A quest for power or a divine quest for glory? Most of the time it's a bite of each. D&D is, in every aspect though, a social game. Without players or a DM there is not D&D. Well, it's been said many times. There's no wrong way to play D&D. But is there? That's too broad of a question to be asking actually. Yes, there is a wrong way to play D&D, but no there isn't a wrong way to play it. Hold on, it makes sense, let me explain. You are playing D&D correctly if you are having fun. When it gets to the point where some players are not enjoying the game, you're playing incorrectly. But at the same time, what's fun to some is not always fun for another. In this aspect there's no wrong way to play D&D, as long as you're having fun. There's one common thing between all successful D&D groups (eg. the one having fun!). This is the DM/Player Pact. Although a group may not be aware of it, it's there. (Also, it is worth noting that there is a lesser Player/Player Pact too, that basically follows the same guidelines) Both DMs and Players have expectations about what should be included in a game. They have different things that they find fun and different opinions about the rules. To enjoy each other's company the DM and Players need to compromise on their common ground to have fun. What makes the Pact? The DM Empowers the Players The DM is the creator of the world and the eyes of the players into the world. S/he is the one who arbitrates what Pcs get and what they don't. A DM can be overrestrictive or very generous. At this point the DM allows and disallows all things. Without the DM the Players have no campaign to play. Players Empower the DM The players at the same time have the very right to agree or disagree with the DM. An overrestrictive or too generous DM may be be undesirable for players and without the players accepting the DM, the DM has no players to DM for. Unless the players accept the DM as a competent and reasonable Dm, he is none other than another person with his or her own veiw on D&D. Expectations Both the DM and the Players have expectations on how the other should be acting. If either strays too far from the other's expectations they are discongruent and thus an issue will arrise. All players and the DM have a responsibility to positively contribute to the gaming session. So what is the Pact, in English? The pact is basically this: "I the Player/DM will hold up my end of the gaming responsibility to make this a fun and enjoyable game for everyone, and in return I expect the same from everyone else." So what happens when the Pact is broken? Any of the Infinite Layers of the Abyss may break forth into your gaming session, depending on the issue. When a powergamer breaks lose and imbalances combat, that's breaking the code. When a player starts killing other players, that's breaking of the pact. Almost any problem that impedes the fun of the group has an origin in one of two things: Either breaking of the pact, or lack of creating a common pact between players and the DM. (Disclaimer: With exception for lack of interest in the game, or other such uncommon scenarios.) So what's the point? What does this all mean? Rule Zero means nothing without players who respect the DM. In fact, rule zero should be sparingly used. Too often do DMs get caught up in this illusion that they are the center of the game and that because they make the world they have some deity given power to control the players, no matter what. The reality is that the players they may still have are probably gritting their teeth or being favored by the DM. Being the Dungeon Master is a responsibility, not an ego trip. Similarly being a player does not give you the liberty to do whatever you want. Your characters actions have in play repercussions. The player has a responsibility to not break the DMs game (via loopholes or imbalanced spells/items) to the point where DM needs to impose houserules to keep the players in line. Identify your Pact Seeing as that the device for enjoyable gaming has been identified, people can use it to better their session. Do you see a problem player with your campaign? Do you want to know the secret to having fun in your campaign? Identify the parts of the game each player enjoys and talk out a common pact that everyone can make an effort to better the gaming session and gear it towards everyone's enjoyment. So for those of you players who want to apply this, ask yourself these questions: -Do you trust your DM and thus give him/her the benefit of the doubt? -Does the DM reward you for your trust in him/her? If you do, you have a good unspoken, unwritten pact with your DM and as long as that holds strong and true, you have a treasure of a group. DMs wanting to rate your DM/Player trust? Ask yourself these questions: -Do your players lack complaints about your rulings? -Do your players appreciate the work you put forth in making the campaign world? -Do you reward your players for working together and accomplishing a goal? -Do you reward your players for their trust that you'll be fair and impartial in your actions? If you answered yes to all, you have a good unwritten pact between your players Trust, respect, Understanding and overall maturity are a foundation of a good DM/player pact, and thus, a good game.
#2 zombiegleemax Jul 29, 2004 12:08:20	Good article, interestingly not too dissimilar from one I just had posted here as well. One point though, on 'What happens when the Pact is broken' section ... When a powergamer breaks lose and imbalances combat, that's breaking the code. When a player starts killing other players, that's breaking of the pact. These, implicitly, do not break a pact especially if the group is having fun by powergaming or min/maxing or if the group is having fun by pitting the players against one another. I think the examples should be removed. As it stands, with these examples being said to 'break the pact' it is implying there is more to a right and wrong way to play the game other than having fun - a group could play either way and still have fun as a group playing the game.