Why I don't GM by the nose

[Hussar]

So, basically, BOTE, Krensky's statement would be correct if the following caveat was added:

Except that it's a power relationship. No matter how much people argue otherwise and no matter how true the the GM has all the power at the table save any decisions a player may make concerning his individual character.​

Don't you think that's a trifle pedantic? If someone has 99% of the power, saying that he doesn't have all the power, while factually accurate, is not exactly the whole truth.

Krensky's point that the DM controls 99% of the game, up to and including changing any rule he or she feels like changing at any point in time, disregarding die rolls and declaring any player dead at any point in time, does pretty much mean that the DM has all the power.

Granted, a DM likely won't exercise the ridiculous examples I put up there in the paragraph above, but, that doesn't mean that he can't. I've seen people on this forum absolutely defend any DM's right to veto any and all player ideas for any reason the DM sees fit, including, "I don't like that, you can't have it."

Or, to put it another way, that DM can declare that there are no elves in his world. As a player, you have two choices, accept that, or refuse to play.

Again, how does the DM not have (almost) all the power at the table?

 

[C_M2008]

I run a sandbox game so I felt that maybe I should chime in here.

My game is sort of a blend of a sandbox game and a story based game, if I had to define it in in a phrase I would call it an evolving sandbox.

The players are free to do whatever they want in the setting, they have many possible hooks of every type (puzzle, hack, treasure, intrigue, etc) based on what I know my players tend to like. All the players also have individual goals to pursue that they can get themselves imbroiled in if they choose.
However the villains of the setting aren't just going to sit back and do squat while the heroes go off chasing their goals. The villains will make progress towards their goals if the heroes don't intervene - the players have some leads to these things, some subtle, some obvious.

Meanwhile settlements change overtime as monsters make trouble, immigrants come in, trade improves, disaster strikes, etc.

The majority of the setting changes rotate around the players, although some are determined by NPC plots or random tables(the DM).
I also give the players further agency by giving the players "Narrative Points" - basically several times per session the players can use these to change the details of the setting in some way, choose how an NPC reacts, decide what that ancient piece of lore is, have a contact for information they need & etc. It's a relatively new introduction in my game, but so far it has met with solid reviews from my players.

The players can have an exceptionally large amount of power in a game if the DM is willing to hand over some of the reins - I will admit this game has required an insane amount of initial prep and the willingness to let the players "murder my baby" (which can be hard to let go of at times) but it has been worth it so far.

Just a bit of insight into how a give & take relationship with the players (who are also my friends - hopefully the case in most groups) - I'll let this get back to its regularly scheduled argument.

 

[Argyle King]

BOTE, what power, beyond their individual character, can a player exercise at a D&D table? The player has no power over the setting, no power over any of the NPC's (which is the majority of the population in a setting) and no power over any event no directly initiated by the player himself.

So, other than the power to follow a plot hook or not, what power does a player have to exercise during the game?

For example, I cannot declare that my character is the long lost son of the king and is now the crown prince. Or rather, I suppose I could declare that, but, it wouldn't be true in the setting unless the DM okays it. Conversely, I can declare that my character is the avatar of his diety and all churches should bow to his authority, but, again, unless the DM okays that, it's not true in the setting.

Heck, I can't even declare that the mail arrives today on time as a player.

So, what power does a player have?

No problem with anything you've said here... but I do want to point out that what is true of D&D is not necessarily true of how other games work. There are many games in which you could indeed claim to be a prince or an avatar of a diety, and it would indeed grant you tangible benefits -benefits which are just as supported as the rules for magic swords and hacking through goblins. Likewise, there are games in which you could indeed have some amount of control over NPCs by having hirelings or gaining allies; alternatively, skills such as propaganda, diplomacy, and various other things can be used.

 

[Krensky]

No. He doesn't.

Once your understand that, you will understand your error.

I'll try this one more time.

When a table forms, the pool their agency together and transfer it to the GM. The GM controls essentially all the power at the table. The GM controls everything other the the players directly. The GM can control the players indirectly, even though he shouldn't. Every action and choice a player makes occurs only because the GM allows it. The GM can disallow anything a player chooses. Now, this is an abuse of the power the table has invested in them, but the only true power the players have to change a situation where the GM acts as a tyrant rather then the first of equals is to leave, or to threaten to leave, the table.

Further commentary on why this is so or more useful, generalized, examples would run afoul of the politics ban.

Well... one of your errors. Then you'll need to do a Google search for "excluded middle".

Although, now that I think about it, your inclination to exclude the middle is probably feeding into your first error, too.

I'm not excluding the middle. I'm quite aware of the principle, both as a logical rule and a logical fallacy. Focusing on the ends is not excluding the middle. Besides, isn't your sandbox good, railroad bad stance 'ignoring' far more of the middle?

IME, non-linear scenarios are easier to prep, easier to run, and are, in fact, resistant to the structural flaws inherent in plot-based prep.

Which isn't to say that you can't screw it up.

Apples and oranges. Well, not your opinion about prep. Of course a non-linear game doesn't have the same potential problems as a linear one. It has it's own. It doesn't make either one better though.

Okay, the truth is that I'm really not sure what to say to you at this point.

Maybe you should try reading what I've written, rather then what you want me to have written?

You, like Malenkirk, are claiming that the OP has some sort of secret statue-and-oranges plan that he wants the players to figure out. You claim that the OP said nothing to contradict your belief that there's some sort of pixel-bitching puzzle hunt with a one-true-way solution lurking in that room.

Stow the bias. What I said was that the OP never said anything about the statue. It might be a trap, it might be a puzzle, it might be a red herring. Frankly, which it is is immaterial to his point. You, however keep insisting that there is nothing to figure out about the statue, which is both a relatively unimportant, tangential issue and unsupported by the evidence. Also, just because there is a 'secret' to the statue doesn't mean there's only one solution. Heck, it doesn't mean there's even a solution at all (in the sense that there's nothing to solve).

But I look at the title of the thread and I see, "Why I don't GM by the nose." And maybe I'm reading too much in to that, but I can't help thinking that "I don't want to lead my players by the nose" is rather antithetical to "I have a secret one-true-way solution that they have to find".

Perhaps your sand box bias is causing you to fill in the OP's description as confirming to your world view, rather then taking it for what it is. Maybe it's further causing you to read things into me arguments that I haven't said.

Then I look in his the OP's original post and I see that he wants his players "to have input" and to "think outside the box". He believes that players' ideas are "just as valid as a ... designer's". He thinks the most important a question a GM can ask is, "What would you do?"

All of this seems pretty clear to me. And it's been restated several more times and in a variety of ways throughout the thread -- both by the OP and by others. So I'm not really sure how to rephrase it for an umpteenth time in a way that you'll understand.

Try abandoning you bias toward sandboxes and then rereading what I actually wrote.

So, in lieu of that, allow me to create an analogy of this conversation as I perceive it:

Sure, despite it's loaded terminology.

fireinthesky: I'd like democracy.
Malenkirk: But who would be king?
BotE: You've been living in a monarchy too long. In a democracy there wouldn't be a king.

Lots of democracies have monarchs. The UK, Spain, Japan, Denmark, Canada, etc. Of course you analogy is so heavily slanted and biased I question it's validity in the first place.

Krensky: You're adding stuff to the OP. He didn't say anything a bout there not being any kings.

He didn't.

BotE: When you vote, you don't need royal surcoats.

And here's where either you analogy or argument falls apart. Your answer is a non-sequitur since the issue isn't if you need a monarch in a democracy, it's whether the OP's proposal excludes them.

Or, to return to point, the simple fact that I pointed out that your claim that the statue has no 'secret' is unsupported by the original post or the follow ups. You may want it to not have a 'secret' since that's how you run your sandbox, but it's not how everyone plays, not even every sandbox GM.

Krensky: Uh huh. The OP never said there wouldn't be a king. Way to construct a cute dismissal of an inconvenient argument.

Your actual commentary that elucidated that quote was far sillier and had far less content.

 

[Raven Crowking]

Except that it's a power relationship. No matter how much people argue otherwise and no matter how true the the GM has all the power at the table.

I disagree with any gaming philosophy that places sole burden for the game's success on one individual, or that disenfranchises the ability of any individual to contribute meaningfully to the game.

A novelist has all the power at the keyboard.

A GM is part of a complex social interaction in which his responsibilities (create and maintain background, including NPCs, monsters, and various adventuring sites/adventures; run the game fairly; try to make play at the table balanced and fun) are balanced by rights designed to allow him to meet those responsibilities (control over background; control over rules).

A player is also part of a complex social interaction in which his responsibilities (create and run a fair and interesting character in a way that makes the game more fun for all concerned) is balanced by rights designed to allow him to meet those responsibilities (control over character creation, except where rules or background might be involved; absolute control over character play, except where rules are involved).

Both player and GM have an absolute right to seek out any sort of game that they might prefer; both GM and player have an absolute right to not engage in any sort of game that they do not enjoy.

If the players are sitting around bored, both the responsibilities of the GM and the responsibilities of the players have not been met. Trying to say that it is all the fault of one person is a dodge.

Enough is implicitly defined in my comment. Enough hooks is enough for the players to find one that grabs them. Your argument that it's undefined is just trying to confuse the issue by playing semantic games with a phrase that is perfectly clear in context.

No, it is not, because there is no counter to it. There is nothing to test what "enough" means apart from the result.

If I say, "Enough water can balance a 20-pound weight", the term "enough" has exact meaning. Twenty pounds of water will balance a 20-pound weight. If I say, "You need enough Vitamin D in your diet for good health", there are recommended daily allowances that the term "enough" can be compared to.

If I say, instead, "A hot enough temperature will bring the dead back to life" the statement is tautologically true. If the dead do not come back to life, clearly it is not hot enough. That there is no way in which "hot enough" can be tested or measured apart from the dead coming back to life makes it analogous to your statement.

"Enough" has no meaning. The statement exists merely to assign blame. The players are disenfranchised (they have no power to make the game fun, because "the GM has all the power at the table") and they are stripped of all responsibility to run a fair and interesting character in a way that makes the game more fun for all concerned.

It is a dodge, and it is a dodge of the worst possible sort. (IMHO, of course.)

I disagree with any gaming philosophy that places sole burden for the game's success on one individual, or that disenfranchises the ability of any individual to contribute meaningfully to the game.

I also "reject any gaming philosophy that dismisses the GM's responsibility to run their game and instead blames the players for every problem at the table, every mistake or misstep of the GM, or every weakness of the GM's preferred play style".

But, then, I embrace a gaming philosophy that balances rights and responsibilities at the table, and shares them based upon the needs of the game. This is, perhaps, a foreign concept to some.

One of the primary weaknesses of the 'pure' sandbox style is that it requires the players be completely self directing and self motivating.

This 'pure' sandbox style must be an invention of yours. I am not aware of any gaming philosophy that requires the GM to avoid giving the players hooks to potential action, encounters, context, and/or consequences to their actions.

What I dislike is the assertion that oh so scrupulously avoids calling the sandbox the one true way constantly beats the drum that they are a better, if not the best way to play.

Good grief. I hope that you are aware that any statement about subjective values is, by its very nature, subjective. If I say "Chocolate ice cream is best" it does not imply that you believe it is best, or that you must believe it is best. It only implies that I believe it is best. The poster ought not to require "IMHO" in mile-high flaming letters.

Someone has an issue with a game with a narrative structure, "Run a sandbox and you won't have those problems." Someone asks for advice on running a mystery story arc, "You wouldn't have these problems if you ran a sand box."

Often true, though. Every form of gaming has its own benefits, and its own difficulties. IME, most players do enjoy a well-run sandbox more than anything else.....and while my sample set is not universal, it does run into several hundred players in multiple US states and Canada. YMMV. Obviously, Your Experience May Vary, too. But, if I give advice to someone saying they have problem X, it is going to be based on how I solve problem X. If that advice doesn't strike the other person as useful, so be it.

Obviously.

Just as it ought to be obvious that, to a person who enjoys narrative games more, the solutions proposed are going to be along the lines of "Y solves X", where Y is a solution that works well in a narrative game.

Really, though, I find it difficult to reconcile your claim of having played in or run, and enjoyed playing in or running, a sandbox with the definition you give for a sandbox. A sandbox is not a flat, featureless plane. At least not as I -- or anyone I know -- uses the term.

If you believe that a sandbox is a game where the players are required to be "be completely self directing and self motivating" one has to wonder why you also believe that sandboxes "are among the hardest medium for a GM to work in. They require the most preparation, the most player buy in, etc."?

After all, the creation of anything that interacts with the players would seem to prevent them from being "completely self directing and self motivating". AFAICT, the only job for the GM in a "pure" sandbox, as you define it, is rules adjudication!

So, basically, BOTE, Krensky's statement would be correct if the following caveat was added:

Except that it's a power relationship. No matter how much people argue otherwise and no matter how true the the GM has all the power at the table save any decisions a player may make concerning his individual character.​

Don't you think that's a trifle pedantic?

No.

In any game that anyone is likely to remain in long, the focus of play is clearly on the decisions the players make concerning their individual characters. The "99% of the power" that the GM has is exercised to provide context for those choices, and to describe/evaluate the consequences of those choices. Those choices, though, are the focus.

This is true in a sandbox. This is true in a narrative game.

Trying to narrow this complex social interaction into "The GM has all the power" or even "The GM has 99% of the power", though, results in an extremely skewed view of what actually occurs during game play.

For instance, even that "99% of the power" is meaningless. 99% of what power? The power to control game play is shared. Bored players can simply do something. A bored GM can simply throw an enemy at the PCs. If the bored player discovers that the GM will not allow her to do anything, or that anything she chooses to do has no consequence, the solution is clear. Find (or make) a new game.

The power to control PC interactions, except in the case of Charm spells and the like, is entirely in the players' court. If the bored GM discovers that the players simply will not react to anything she introduces, the solution is clear. Find new players, or change what you are running.

Again, how does the DM not have (almost) all the power at the table?

Hussar, that problem is solved by not playing with douche bags.



RC

 

[Mallus]

Fair enough; see below...
In theory, yes.

In practice, I've played with (and DMed) players who would quite happily have their PCs stand aside and let others do the "exciting things" involving risk and death and all sorts of other bad stuff...

Heh... our theories and practices are mixed up. In my experience, the reason players play is for the chance to act out imaginary daring-do. There's a reason these games tend to model various forms of adventure fiction, and not other potentially lucrative acts like investment banking or Powerball-playing.

That some players would actively avoid these dangerous acts is like someone agreeing to play a soccer match w/friends and then spending the entire afternoon sitting on the sideline. Different strokes and all, but this is kinda weird.

... then roll in once the dust had settled, loot the corpses of both sides, and go back to town and bask in the fame and fortune.

What does 'bask in the fame and fortune' even mean in this context? How much game time can you spend basking in virtual praise, for imaginary acts your avatar didn't actually pretend-accomplish, or spending imaginary wealth on imaginary vices, products, and services? "OK, so your PC is stuffed to the rafters with ale and whores, and owns a Bentley, which is strange because they won't be invented for a few hundred years. Now what?" I've never seen a campaign play out like this.

So what's my incentive to keep taking risks and-or to keep things moving?

Well, my solution, should I ever DM for such creatures, would be to devote very little game time to the, ahem, reticent players imaginary shopping sprees and fame-whoring. The vast majority of the game would be spent on the dangerous stuff. If they didn't take the hint, I'd ask them to go...

 

[Beginning of the End]

So, basically, BOTE, Krensky's statement would be correct if the following caveat was added:

Except that it's a power relationship. No matter how much people argue otherwise and no matter how true the the GM has all the power at the table save any decisions a player may make concerning his individual character.​

Don't you think that's a trifle pedantic?

If you can't figure out how controlling the protagonists in a story gives you the ability to strongly influence the pace and content of the story, I can't really help you. We've reached a level of "self-evident" at which I'm not clear on how to further elucidate you.

Krensky's point that the DM controls 99% of the game, up to and including changing any rule he or she feels like changing at any point in time, disregarding die rolls and declaring any player dead at any point in time, does pretty much mean that the DM has all the power.

Well, yes. If a GM wants to lead their players around by the nose and make their choices for them (or negate the choices that they do make), then the players won't be able to wield power through their choices. But I urge you to take a long, hard look at the title of this thread and consider that you have now boiled the conversation down to:

fireinthesky: I don't want to lead my players around by the nose.
Hussar: That's your fault because you won't lead your players around by the nose.

When a table forms, the pool their agency together and transfer it to the GM. The GM controls essentially all the power at the table.

No. Seriously. Stop. Is there any way to make you re-evaluate this fundamentally dysfunctional premise?

As I've said before, I'm fully willing to accept that there are gaming tables at which the GM wields complete and absolute power. (In fact, my original post in this thread relies upon that being true.) Are you in any way capable of accepting that not all gaming tables work like that?

Because if you are really unwilling or incapable of widening your narrow view of how RPGs can be played, then there's really nothing more to be discussed. I've got better things to do than chatting with a blind man who refuses to believe that other people are capable of sight.

You, however keep insisting that there is nothing to figure out about the statue, which is both a relatively unimportant, tangential issue and unsupported by the evidence.

This, BTW, is not what I wrote (your efforts at increasingly selective quoting notwithstanding).

 

[JacktheRabbit]

So, basically, BOTE, Krensky's statement would be correct if the following caveat was added:

Except that it's a power relationship. No matter how much people argue otherwise and no matter how true the the GM has all the power at the table save any decisions a player may make concerning his individual character.​

Don't you think that's a trifle pedantic? If someone has 99% of the power, saying that he doesn't have all the power, while factually accurate, is not exactly the whole truth.

Krensky's point that the DM controls 99% of the game, up to and including changing any rule he or she feels like changing at any point in time, disregarding die rolls and declaring any player dead at any point in time, does pretty much mean that the DM has all the power.

Granted, a DM likely won't exercise the ridiculous examples I put up there in the paragraph above, but, that doesn't mean that he can't. I've seen people on this forum absolutely defend any DM's right to veto any and all player ideas for any reason the DM sees fit, including, "I don't like that, you can't have it."

Or, to put it another way, that DM can declare that there are no elves in his world. As a player, you have two choices, accept that, or refuse to play.

Again, how does the DM not have (almost) all the power at the table?

Yes it does mean he cant. A DM is nothing without a group of willing players. Attempts to do anything you mentioned above will 99 times out of 100 result in a player revolt and 4 to 1, 5 to 1, or 6 to 1 goes in favor of the player. Remember if a DM pisses off his entire group then they can leave and if they want to chose one of their own as a new DM. The DM on the other hand has to go find a new group or form a new group will to accept him as DM.

Both the players and the DM have the same amount of power to basically nuke the game, beyond that neither has any more power than the other. Both need the other to have a game. A DM may in theory have the ability to ignore rules, etc, etc, but any attempt to use that power without a damn good reason will in most cases result in any number of players leaving.

I will caveat this with my opinion that a DM is not the final arbitrator of the rules. If 5 players read a rule the same way and the DM reads it a different way then the players win. End of story.

 

[Plane Sailing]

Tone down the arguing please guys. It is getting a little personal, and we don't want that. Thanks.

 

[kitsune9]

"Attack the chancelor because I'm bored" is about the worst kind of role play I can imagine.

I had a 2e gaming group that was like that. Running them at the time was always a frustrating experience, but when I look back on it, I can't help but laugh about it. When one of the players got bored or didn't think there was enough mayhem, they did these things.

For example, one guy played a halfling rogue who was about a much of a blood-thirsty wannabe assassin he could be without having to list evil as his alignment. The party is in a dungeon and they are sort of trapped because they all went around opening as many doors as possible and letting things out at the same time. So when the group was taking five minutes to discuss what to do next, he simply opens the door and they have to fight it out with the various vermin on the other side.

Of course, the event that led up to them getting stuck in the dungeon was that they were on the run from a village that formed a mob. The guy's wife played a barbarian and she refused to give up her weapons to enter the village. The constable said, "Suit yourself, you can't come into the village grounds." She attacks and kills the constable. She, as a player, didn't want to roleplay or comply as she thought that was boring. When the other village militia arrive to provide help, the party kills them too and then the village forms a mob at which they players fled. This killed my whole "You arrive in a village and they need your aid with something" adventure.