Legends and Lore : The Fine Art of Dungeon Mastering

[Rechan]

Huh. It never occurred to me that people use modules to teach themselevs how to DM. I mean I can see it as having something to start from, but not how to structure an adventure or any of the other business.

I had barely played before I decided to become a DM, and it was all my own adventures. In fact I've only ran two modules (one was by request of the group), and the number of pre-made adventures I'd like to run are very, very small.

 

[I'm A Banana]

That's how roleplaying transcends the character sheet.

It's also how it stops being a game.

When I'm playing D&D, I don't need roleplaying to transcend anything. I've been in professional productions. I know how to get into character. I understand how to inhabit the mindspace of another individual. I have been playing make-believe since I've been a toddler. If I wanted to transcend the character sheet, I would abandon the character sheet. I don't need D&D to play make-believe.

I do need D&D to be a game, which means that I can use rules in play to attempt victory. If the game doesn't support me using rules to find the secret door or convince the grand duke of the urgency of my quest, it's not meeting my needs.

It's still a roleplaying game, which means that part of the game is getting into that mindspace. But without the game, it's just roleplaying, which I don't need 900 pages of rules to do. It's fun and all, but it's not the reason I play D&D.

It's a self-fulfilling prophecy to fear not being perfect at roleplaying and falling back on the dice and stats. Roleplaying (any tabletop game with a facilitator, really) is about doing the best you can and allowing the GM to account for the disparity by including not only the roleplaying effort but *also* the dice and stats.

You see it as an imperfection leading someone to fall back on a lesser element. But to me, that element -- the dice roll -- is the point, and roleplaying is largely set dressing around the point. Without that roll informing the DM, this is just Bad Theater Hour in my living room.

A system that relies heavily on DM Fiat doesn't let me feel like I'm accomplishing anything. It feels more like I am trying to convince the DM to let me do something. That's not a game I'm interested in playing.

 

[Mark CMG]

It's also how it stops being a game.

Nope. It's how it changes from being just a game to a roleplaying game. The dice and stats still have an affect, just not the only affect (nor the primary affect).

You see it as an imperfection leading someone to fall back on a lesser element.

Nope, again. I see it as the point to playing a roleplaying game rather than just some other type of game.

 

[JoeGKushner]

Beating a dead horse at this point. 3rd ed didn't necessarily start this direction of 'neutralzing' the GM but it certainly moved forward with it. 4e took that on head first.

The next edition they make, I hope they realize that there are, oh, 4 to 5 times as many players as there are DM's and focus on how even one bad player can ruin a campaign for everyone as opposed to, "GMs are bad unless they say yes to everything and have to run the games as written because to do otherwise would be unfair to the players and the game as written."

Blah.

 

[I'm A Banana]

It's how it changes from being just a game to a roleplaying game.

If there ain't no rules, it ain't no game.

It's how it changes from being just a game to a roleplaying game.

Clearly, we only disagree in the matter of degrees. Can't my way be acceptable for me?

I see it as the point to playing a roleplaying game rather than just some other type of game.

Fabbo.

It doesn't work for me.

Ok?

 

[Mark CMG]

If there ain't no rules, it ain't no game.

There are rules and of course it is a game. A roleplaying game just happens to have interaction of a roleplaying nature between the facilitator and the other players unlike a game that only uses the rules and requires little to no facilitation. You keep pretending like I am suggesting not to use rules when clearly I have stated how the rules work in a roleplaying game where a facilitator takes those things into account while adjudicating situations.

Clearly, we only disagree in the matter of degrees.

Possibly. I'm only discussing roleplaying games in general and the direction of the design of the one being discussed in the articles.

Can't my way be acceptable for me?

No two games are alike, which is why I am discussing the future of the game as proposed in bits and pieces in the articles. Not having gamed with you, I have no real sense of what actually happens at your table and wouldn't dream of claiming I do. In any event, you don't need my permission to play any game at all any way you like.

 

[Rechan]

If I am not a gregarious, witty, clever person, I should still be able to successfully play a gregarious, witty, clever character because I have stats that say I am.

All the rules boil down to is "Does this action work?" "If it exceeds this, success."

Roleplaying imo is the stuff that happens around the dice rolling. The broken tavern window that's still broken when you come back. The battle cry that you yodel when you roll initiative. The hatred for goat-men after one ate your bedroll. The decision to leap onto the beholder's back and hang on by the eyestalks.

 

[Stormonu]

It's also how it stops being a game.

When I'm playing D&D, I don't need roleplaying to transcend anything. I've been in professional productions. I know how to get into character. I understand how to inhabit the mindspace of another individual. I have been playing make-believe since I've been a toddler. If I wanted to transcend the character sheet, I would abandon the character sheet. I don't need D&D to play make-believe.

I do need D&D to be a game, which means that I can use rules in play to attempt victory. If the game doesn't support me using rules to find the secret door or convince the grand duke of the urgency of my quest, it's not meeting my needs.

It's still a roleplaying game, which means that part of the game is getting into that mindspace. But without the game, it's just roleplaying, which I don't need 900 pages of rules to do. It's fun and all, but it's not the reason I play D&D.



You see it as an imperfection leading someone to fall back on a lesser element. But to me, that element -- the dice roll -- is the point, and roleplaying is largely set dressing around the point. Without that roll informing the DM, this is just Bad Theater Hour in my living room.

A system that relies heavily on DM Fiat doesn't let me feel like I'm accomplishing anything. It feels more like I am trying to convince the DM to let me do something. That's not a game I'm interested in playing.

Hey, I don't like to think of it as "Bad Theater Hour" around my house - it's better than some stuff I watch on TV (especially SyFy, but that's a whole 'nother ball of wax).

I probably come at RPGs from an odd angle because for about 2 years when I initially got the D&D game, because of various things, I and my friends did play it exclusively as pure "make-believe" - with no dice. Some of the best times I had with D&D. At the same time, I don't think I'd trust myself to go back to those days of pure fiat.

I know that you are mainly aiming at having "laws" in place for doing things, but sometimes I wonder if D&D isn't too married to a fondness for dice and "rolling for it". For the most part, dice are there to determine whether something passes or fails. It's one way of determining outcome, but certainly not the only, or best one*. They have the advantage that they are impartial, but that's also a downfall - over the years I've seen many an occasion where bad dice rolls are worse than recticent DM's. Something great story-wise actions got shot down because the dice simply wouldn't cooperate. Overall I'd rather see a system that marries narrative control and impartial resolution that allows the players (and DM) some leeway in task resolution. For most stuff, impartial resolution creates tension, but there needs to be a way to occasionally overrule the impartial system for elements that drive the story forward.

Likewise, for whatever reason, shortly after getting my 1st D&D set, I lost the rulebook and only had B2 - Keep on the Borderlands, for reference. There's some lengthy DMing notes in that module, of the breadth and depth you probably wouldn't see in modules these days. For a while, as I indicated above, it was the only interface I had into the D&D game and it did have quite an influence on my own module design for many years afterward (for example, who these days includes women and children in their goblin lairs these days, for one? Those design choices provided some tough choices when going raiding back in the day.)

* Others might include using a hand of cards or even a push-pull story system (i.e., what story complications are you willing to risk for succeeding in your actions).

 

[The Shaman]

I mean, was your first DMing experience with a module or did you make up an adventure?

Y'know, that's a really interesting question.

My first refereeing experience was a dungeon I made on my own - in fact, I wouldn't run a published module for at least three or four years after I started playing.

Shortly after that first experience, I was introduced to The First Fantasy Campaign, Wilderlands of High Fantasy, and the Temple of the Frog in Blackmoor, and those had a significant influence on the dungeons, towns, and wilderness I churned out after that, as did Wormy, but I was still creating my own stuff.

Did you spend more time reading the DMG than the module?

The DMG came out nearly two years after I started running my own games . . .

 

[The Shaman]

There are rules and of course it is a game. A roleplaying game just happens to have interaction of a roleplaying nature between the facilitator and the other players unlike a game that only uses the rules and requires little to no facilitation. You keep pretending like I am suggesting not to use rules when clearly I have stated how the rules work in a roleplaying game where a facilitator takes those things into account while adjudicating situations.

As they do in Kriegsspiel as well, which only goes back as far as 1812.