Menu
News
All News
Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
Pathfinder
Starfinder
Warhammer
2d20 System
Year Zero Engine
Industry News
Reviews
Dragon Reflections
Columns
Weekly Digests
Weekly News Digest
Freebies, Sales & Bundles
RPG Print News
RPG Crowdfunding News
Game Content
ENterplanetary DimENsions
Mythological Figures
Opinion
Worlds of Design
Peregrine's Next
RPG Evolution
Other Columns
From the Freelancing Frontline
Monster ENcyclopedia
WotC/TSR Alumni Look Back
4 Hours w/RSD (Ryan Dancey)
The Road to 3E (Jonathan Tweet)
Greenwood's Realms (Ed Greenwood)
Drawmij's TSR (Jim Ward)
Community
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Resources
Wiki
Pages
Latest activity
Media
New media
New comments
Search media
Downloads
Latest reviews
Search resources
EN Publishing
Store
EN5ider
Adventures in ZEITGEIST
Awfully Cheerful Engine
What's OLD is NEW
Judge Dredd & The Worlds Of 2000AD
War of the Burning Sky
Level Up: Advanced 5E
Events & Releases
Upcoming Events
Private Events
Featured Events
Socials!
Twitch
YouTube
Facebook (EN Publishing)
Facebook (EN World)
Twitter
Instagram
TikTok
Podcast
Features
Top 5 RPGs Compiled Charts 2004-Present
Adventure Game Industry Market Research Summary (RPGs) V1.0
Ryan Dancey: Acquiring TSR
Q&A With Gary Gygax
D&D Rules FAQs
TSR, WotC, & Paizo: A Comparative History
D&D Pronunciation Guide
Million Dollar TTRPG Kickstarters
Tabletop RPG Podcast Hall of Fame
Eric Noah's Unofficial D&D 3rd Edition News
D&D in the Mainstream
D&D & RPG History
About Morrus
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Dungeons & Dragons
D&D Next Blog: Tone and Edition
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="Balesir" data-source="post: 5896816" data-attributes="member: 27160"><p>Oh, OK - maybe, then, the boot was on the other foot? Did it occur to you that the DM may have been ignoring the rules and making up new ones on the fly to generate a specific story or feel? It sounds like you just assumed that playing by the rules was the "correct" way to play. It happens that I agree with that notion (becuase I think if the rules aren't there to be followed, they shouldn't be there!), but I know that many folk don't see things that way. The illusion of having those "rules" while they pursue their own objectives (which may be perfectly benign ones) using power, rather than rules, to attain their ends seems as natural to them as following the rules does to you or I.</p><p></p><p>It doesn't necessarily lead to lack of player agency - rather, the player agency is only there to the extent that the DM allows it to be, and the player has no clear and unambiguous way to identify that extent.</p><p></p><p>This is where some of the "good DM"/"bad DM" stuff comes about. It's not linked to specific actions or approaches, as such, but rather "good DMs" set the extent of player agency such that the players' expectations for it are met, whereas "bad DMs" set player agency in a way that does not meet the players' expectations. It's notable that this can run in either direction; I have heard players complain of too much, as well as too little agency.</p><p></p><p>In my own GMing I have, with some notable exceptions, been reasonably successful in meeting players' expectations of agency, I think. But that does not mean that I see deliberate vagueness or ambiguity in game rules or deliberate schemas of "GM power overrides rules" as anything but inferior ways to design an RPG.</p><p></p><p>Heh - you may well be right, there.</p><p></p><p>Ah, OK - that blindsided me because I don't see that stuff (encounter levels and so on) as "rules" or "systems" at all. Those are setting/adventure/situation design features and they have absolutely zip to do with the players in a D&D type game. In rules terms, those are "scene framing", and the rules say that scene framing is done by the DM. There can be good and bad scene framing, for sure, but it's still the DM's prerogative.</p><p></p><p>Once <em>in</em> the scene, however, the rules dictate what results from the characters' (and monsters') actions.</p><p></p><p>Ahh, big subject. There are more ways to have "rules light" than just to lump the ad hoc design of "rules systems" onto the DM. If you assume an action resolution based system (i.e. the players in the game describe actions for their characters to take, and the systems - whether written or invented by the DM ad hoc - resolve the outcome of those actions), then, yes, "rules light" will mean "rules incomplete", so the DM will need to make up rules for cases not covered.</p><p></p><p>If you assume a conflict resolution system, on the other hand (i.e. the players describe objectives that they wish to pursue in a scene, and inject the means they will leverage in advancing that objective, while the system resolves whose objectives get achieved and to what extent), the rules system can be quite simple without any need for GM extrapolation or fiat.</p><p></p><p>Hmmm; maybe. If such things are not built into the core of the system - the descriptions of the character abilities, the core mechanics of resoltuion - I'm not sure they can be well realised in any "module". But, that's OK - 4e does a pretty good job in that department. And maybe 5e will do something worthwhile but different?</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Balesir, post: 5896816, member: 27160"] Oh, OK - maybe, then, the boot was on the other foot? Did it occur to you that the DM may have been ignoring the rules and making up new ones on the fly to generate a specific story or feel? It sounds like you just assumed that playing by the rules was the "correct" way to play. It happens that I agree with that notion (becuase I think if the rules aren't there to be followed, they shouldn't be there!), but I know that many folk don't see things that way. The illusion of having those "rules" while they pursue their own objectives (which may be perfectly benign ones) using power, rather than rules, to attain their ends seems as natural to them as following the rules does to you or I. It doesn't necessarily lead to lack of player agency - rather, the player agency is only there to the extent that the DM allows it to be, and the player has no clear and unambiguous way to identify that extent. This is where some of the "good DM"/"bad DM" stuff comes about. It's not linked to specific actions or approaches, as such, but rather "good DMs" set the extent of player agency such that the players' expectations for it are met, whereas "bad DMs" set player agency in a way that does not meet the players' expectations. It's notable that this can run in either direction; I have heard players complain of too much, as well as too little agency. In my own GMing I have, with some notable exceptions, been reasonably successful in meeting players' expectations of agency, I think. But that does not mean that I see deliberate vagueness or ambiguity in game rules or deliberate schemas of "GM power overrides rules" as anything but inferior ways to design an RPG. Heh - you may well be right, there. Ah, OK - that blindsided me because I don't see that stuff (encounter levels and so on) as "rules" or "systems" at all. Those are setting/adventure/situation design features and they have absolutely zip to do with the players in a D&D type game. In rules terms, those are "scene framing", and the rules say that scene framing is done by the DM. There can be good and bad scene framing, for sure, but it's still the DM's prerogative. Once [I]in[/I] the scene, however, the rules dictate what results from the characters' (and monsters') actions. Ahh, big subject. There are more ways to have "rules light" than just to lump the ad hoc design of "rules systems" onto the DM. If you assume an action resolution based system (i.e. the players in the game describe actions for their characters to take, and the systems - whether written or invented by the DM ad hoc - resolve the outcome of those actions), then, yes, "rules light" will mean "rules incomplete", so the DM will need to make up rules for cases not covered. If you assume a conflict resolution system, on the other hand (i.e. the players describe objectives that they wish to pursue in a scene, and inject the means they will leverage in advancing that objective, while the system resolves whose objectives get achieved and to what extent), the rules system can be quite simple without any need for GM extrapolation or fiat. Hmmm; maybe. If such things are not built into the core of the system - the descriptions of the character abilities, the core mechanics of resoltuion - I'm not sure they can be well realised in any "module". But, that's OK - 4e does a pretty good job in that department. And maybe 5e will do something worthwhile but different? [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Dungeons & Dragons
D&D Next Blog: Tone and Edition
Top