Forum

[pemerton]

Originally Posted by ProfessorCirno

Also, was the rule of yes the one in the 4e book that had the example of the DM being told what to do? Because that was like the worst argument ever for that rule

I've been wondering where all the outrage was at this example in a D&D core rulebook of a player adopting director's stance.

Frankly, I think that more director's stance is probably necessary to make 4e work. For example, for a player to be able to sensibly narrate the use of a power like Come and Get It (Hypersmurf has posted some clever examples in various threads), or Tumbling past a gelatinous cube, then the player has to be able to specify elements of the gameworld other than her PC.

Originally Posted by Mark

I've always found that most RPGs play very well having the players affect the game world through their characters. Sometimes, some meta-game suggestions prior to the campaign are solicited or proffered, about the types of adventures (dungeon crawls, outdoor hunts, puzzle oriented, etc.) or the tone of the campaign (political, hack-n-slash, zeros-to-heroes, etc.), but otherwise in-game and in-character or through their characters, more accurately.

Well, one of Hypersmurf's example narrations of Come and Get It is "The sun reflects of my blade, dazzling the first of the two goblins in the tree. As he falls, his companion reaches out to grab him and overbalances also. They land at my feet and I carve them with my sword." This requires the player to be able to narrate the gameworld independently of her PC's actions. Another example Hypersmurf has given is "I pull on the rug the wizard is standing on. She stumbles, trips and lands at my feet. I carve her with my sword." Again, this requires the player to be able to narrate the gameworld (including the existence of a rug).

Originally Posted by BryonD

But honestly, I think different types of games are being described. A juvenile game such as the James Wyatt example is very different than an adult game. So the degree to which the rule applies needs to vary as well. I'd be shocked if James plays that way with his on-going adult games. (One-off or intentionally silly games are a completely different matter of course)

So on the one hand the rule kinda shocks me as being so extremely obvious that any remotely decent DM should be familiar with the concept. It really goes without saying. But also, understanding degree is very important. If you just want to kick in the door and to hell with consistency, lets kill things and take their stuff, then by all means, say yes to everything. If you want a more engaging story, with action as just a part along the way, then "yes, but you must make this roll" and an appropriate supply of "no" are key elements of good DMing.

The notion that there is an inherent juvenility to a player adopting director's stance is a little odd. Likewise the notion that it's better suited to kick-in-the-door play. Most games which embrace the players adoption of director's stance as central to the game (some examples have been given upthread - I'd add HeroWars and The Dying Earth to the list) are aimed at something quite different from kick-in-the-door play.

Originally Posted by jensun

Also, how would you react to a player wanting to detail say, the beliefs and structure of his church, the organisation of the Wizards Guild he is a member of, the smugglers in the city he used to work for or his old mercenary company?

That sort of stuff is bread and butter to our group.

Originally Posted by jensun

The majority of in game problems would be solved by three very simple things:

1. Talking about the game you want to play beforehand
2. Creating the characters together, not just mechanics but story
3. Playing with people you would choose to socialise with away from the gaming table

Originally Posted by jensun

Also, this issue has nothing whatsoever to do with "hack and slash" versus "narrative" play. Its to do with treating the game as a co-operative undertaking between friends where everyone gets to be involved versus something which the players passively experience.

I agree with all of this.

Originally Posted by Celebrim

Why in Hades would you want that as a player???? If I wanted to just make up the appearance of prominent NPC's, I WOULDN'T EVEN NEED TO PLAY D&D. I could do that by myself.

<snip>

Again, what's the fun in knowing what is going to happen?

The fact that a player gets to introduce a gameworld element that is not her PC, nor the result of her PC's action, doesn't mean she knows what's going to happen. That won't be known until play actually occurs. What it does mean is that the player gets to shape the thematic or aesthetic content of the game.

Originally Posted by Celebrim

When I put down the DM's screen it's so I don't have imagine every blasted NPC but instead can sit back and be entertained by a DM with a good imagination.

Fair enough. That's a different approach to the game.