Why I don't GM by the nose

[Hussar]

I think there is a tendency among gamers and, genre fans in general, to conflate setting with plot. Some people read genre fiction to revel in the mystical, fantastic worlds that are created. Some people read genre fiction for the plot and the events.

I'm in the second camp. I do not particularly like world building and this goes a long way to explaining why I prefer short fiction (short stories, flash fiction, novellas) to novels. If you can't paint the picture of your setting in a couple of paragraphs, I stop caring.

So, sending the party off on some lengthy wild goose chase simply to showcase how wonderful your setting is, is not going to interest me. I do, however, realize that there are others who would love this kind of thing. For some players, being faced with a statue and a couple of oranges that have nothing to do with whatever is going on in the game at the time is a barrel of fun. To me, it's like fingernails on a chalk board. I find it endlessly frustrating.

As a DM, recognizing which side of the fence your players lie on is a sign of a good DM. It's not about one side being a "better" game or not. If this sort of thing floats your boat, more power to you.

I think it also goes a very long way towards explaining how some people have multi-year campaigns. Again, not a knock. It's not my cup of tea, but, obviously it works for people who are not me. And that's a good thing.

 

[Hussar]

Was reading the Campaign Duration thread and came across this post:

My longest campaign ran for around 11-12 years. The players were close friends who all got along. The campaign ended because of real world obligations.


My shortest campaign lasted for 30 minutes. The players were a bunch of mooks who sabotaged the campaign in the very first encounter where they attacked an administrator (who was a source of information) who was under the protection of the local baron. The players thought I was being unfair when I had the town guard show up and try to arrest them. After a few minutes of arguing, I folded up my DM's screen, packed up my books, and left.

Here we have a pretty solid example of DM power. The players attempt something the DM didn't like and the game ended.

Everyone can talk about walking out on the DM, but, at the end of the day, if the DM walks out, your game ends. The DM can always replace a player.

((Note, I am not making any comment on the validity of Ulrick's response or criticising his actions in the slightest. I am simply holding up an example of how DM's have far more power at the table.))

 

[pemerton]

Hussar, I share your dislike of the prioritisation of setting over story/plot. But I've run multiple years-long campaigns (8 years, 11 years, and 2 years for the current one).

In the sort of game I like to run, the setting nevertheless plays an important role, as a source of plot elements. My games tend to have a certain same-iness about them (if I was any good as a creator of fictions, I'd be doing it professionally!), with the early part of the campaign involving the PCs (and the players) developing a sense of the history and scale of the gameworld and the range of relevant adversaries/allies given their own inclinations and PC backgrounds. As the game develops, the PCs become more and more directly invovled in the myth and history of the gameworld.

To keep the momentum going, in my experience you need (i) a fairly rich and layered myth/history, with (ii) lots of interrelated elements that both relate to the PCs' backgrounds (and players' thematic concerns) and will give the players lots of scope to make choices about alliances/enemies/how to engage, and (iii) a story structure (established via geography, antagonist's motivations, etc) that makes it plausible for multiple such choices to be made and have their ramifications play out over many sessions of play without things being forced to an early conclusion (the game can become derailed if things go too far in this direction, and the story is so convoluted, dense or just plain slow that no progress towards a conclusion seems to be possible). And obviously the players have to be happy to buy into this.

The upshot is fairly complex plots with the PCs at the centre of events in the unfolding history of the gameworld. The game can become fairly sprawling, in terms of the relevant geography and the PC's salient field of action, but it's not a sandbox (ie the players aren't exploring the world with their PCs - if anything, they are exploring their PCs with the world as a tool in that endeavour). At the practical level, players ensure at least some of the PCs have sufficient knowledge skills to engage with the gameworld, and they take lots of notes to keep track of everything, and draw relationship charts or similar to keep track of enemies/allies/factions/historical connections etc. I think it's a playstyle to which 4e is well-suited (certainly better than Rolemaster, which is what I was doing it with!).

 

[Lanefan]

... I've run multiple years-long campaigns (8 years, 11 years, and 2 years for the current one).

I think it's a playstyle to which 4e is well-suited (certainly better than Rolemaster, which is what I was doing it with!).

I'd be interested to hear how you plan to bang an 8-10 year campaign out of 4e, for such things seem to be something to which it is not well-suited. Unless, of course, you can scale the game to 70th level.

In the sort of game I like to run, the setting nevertheless plays an important role, as a source of plot elements. My games tend to have a certain same-iness about them (if I was any good as a creator of fictions, I'd be doing it professionally!), with the early part of the campaign involving the PCs (and the players) developing a sense of the history and scale of the gameworld and the range of relevant adversaries/allies given their own inclinations and PC backgrounds. As the game develops, the PCs become more and more directly invovled in the myth and history of the gameworld.

To keep the momentum going, in my experience you need (i) a fairly rich and layered myth/history, with (ii) lots of interrelated elements that both relate to the PCs' backgrounds (and players' thematic concerns) and will give the players lots of scope to make choices about alliances/enemies/how to engage, and (iii) a story structure (established via geography, antagonist's motivations, etc) that makes it plausible for multiple such choices to be made and have their ramifications play out over many sessions of play without things being forced to an early conclusion (the game can become derailed if things go too far in this direction, and the story is so convoluted, dense or just plain slow that no progress towards a conclusion seems to be possible). And obviously the players have to be happy to buy into this.

The upshot is fairly complex plots with the PCs at the centre of events in the unfolding history of the gameworld. The game can become fairly sprawling, in terms of the relevant geography and the PC's salient field of action, but it's not a sandbox (ie the players aren't exploring the world with their PCs - if anything, they are exploring their PCs with the world as a tool in that endeavour). At the practical level, players ensure at least some of the PCs have sufficient knowledge skills to engage with the gameworld, and they take lots of notes to keep track of everything, and draw relationship charts or similar to keep track of enemies/allies/factions/historical connections etc.

This sounds frighteningly like my current campaign, except you've probably put more thought into it.

Only thing I'd add is that sometimes it's nice to have an adventure that has nothing to do with the overall plot at all; to just go up in the hills and wallop giants for a while, or something similar. That way, the main plot seems a bit fresher when returned to later.

Lanefan

EDIT: I've become a Qullan, it seems.

What's a Qullan?

 

[Argyle King]

I don't entirely agree with this. At least as I read the 4e PHB, players get to choose a race, a class, a paragon path and an epic destiny for their PC. This all sets some parameters on the gameworld, which the GM is not free just to ignore.

I know some people contend that the GM is always free to veto any given race, class, PP or ED. But this isn't written into the PHB. (It may be in Essentials. I haven't seen those players' books. If it is, it would be yet another reason why I like the technical design of Essentials but dislike the feel of the RPG it describes.)

I just felt the need to chime in because what I quoted here was in response to a response that Hussar had to something I said. I feel as though the conversation branched into a direction which drifted too far away from the original comment.

Here's what was said prior to Pem:

Me: 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.

Originally Posted by Johnny3D3D
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.

Hussar: Oh totally. Yes. I certainly didn't want to imply that there were games which didn't provide players with this level of authorial control over the campaign.

Just that D&D isn't one of them.
-------------------------------------------------------------


I think (perhaps wrongly? I'm sure Hussar will correct me if I am assuming what he meant wrongly) Hussar was talking about having control over the setting and some amount of authority over the narration and fluff of the setting.

In the current version of D&D*, by default; at best, saying you are the son of the local baron or something of that nature tends to grant you a whopping +2 bonus on a skill related to your background, perhaps a feat, or some sort of situational bonus. Beyond that, you're not assumed to have any real authority over any of the NPCs in the game or have any added wealth or status beyond that given to the other characters

(*Be aware that I have virtually no knowledge of 4E.E at all. If it is different, I am not aware of that.)

There are other games which do not function the same way as D&D. There are games in which claiming to be the son of the local Baron has a more tangible value, and has benefits which are just as useful and just as supported by the structure of the game as a new magic sword or knowing a certain spell. You could use your status, social influence, and other such things and get a little more out of it.

This is not meant as a slight against D&D; my original comment (and this one) are only intended to illustrate that not every rpg functions the same way. D&D's style and the ideals upon which D&D are built assume certain things about the type of game a group of people will be playing that other games might not. As such, there are certain in-game activities and certain aspects of characters which are given more prominance and support in D&D; likewise, games which have different ideals highlight other things about a character.


With all of that being said, I also feel that I should clarify my position somewhat. A lot of the discussion seems to focusing on DM power vs Player power. I was looking at things from more of a Character power point of view. Yes, the character is ultimately controlled by the player; however, I feel that the point of view is somewhat different.

While I would agree that I have a little more out-of-game power than my players do in the game I currently run by virtue of having to abide by the parameters of the game I have set** (i.e. point values of characters, races available, etc,) I don't not necessarily feel that their characters have a lack of in-game power and/or control over the progression of the game.

To give an example, one of the PCs has aspirations of building a castle and claiming a section of land; his character is free to pursue that goal. That doesn't mean there won't be reactions to his actions. There may be NPCs who aren't thrilled with the idea, but those reactions are also things which are character generated. As the out-of-game entity of DM, I am in no way telling the out-of-game entity which is the player that he cannot have his character attempt to do that. As the player of an in-game character (NPC) I am reacting to the actions of another player's in-game character (PC.) This is a shared experience; not a dictated one.

**I should mention that this particular campaign is a little bit of an exception to this statement though. The only thing I had sketched out and set in stone was the area where the PCs were meeting to begin the campaign. The rest of the surrounding area was fleshed out using what the players had included in a background story. To give an example of this, the player of a mage character had in his character's background story that he was exiled from a cabal of mages who live on an island off the southern coast of the main land. As a result, that location and the group of mages are now part of the game world. I still have a lot of power over what exactly is there, and what I felt was reasonable to add to parts of the setting, but the players had a far greater amount of control in creating the setting than I imagine is typical of most games.


Comments on a few other things:

If I was not informed of the houserule ahead of time, I think I would be somewhat irked by the jumping rogue situation. It is a common houserule, but I wouldn't like being told mid-game (especially when in a situation where how the rule worked could impact the life of my character!) that it was suddenly being implemented out of the blue.

I would not be upset at a DM not including a certain race in a game during character creation nor would I be upset about fluff or other things being changed about a game. There are two main reasons this wouldn't upset me. A) Because this is something which would be communicated to me before the actual wheels of the game started turning. If I chose to still participate in the game after being told Race X isn't available, I am agreeing (as a player in the game) to abide by those limitations, and B) Because I feel that the person doing all of the preperation work to create the game, create the setting, keep track of every NPC in the world, and writing encounters should be entitled to at least some amount of narrative control so as to help make all of that work feel like a more rewarding experience.

I dunno... I'm just a guy who gets together with some friends on the weekend to roll dice, satisfy my urge to game, and drink a little Mt. Dew, but that's how I see it.

 

[Dausuul]

When you read A Song of Fire and Ice... how many scenes are irrelevant?

Depends. Am I reading "A Feast for Crows?"

 

[BryonD]

Here we have a pretty solid example of DM power. The players attempt something the DM didn't like and the game ended.

Everyone can talk about walking out on the DM, but, at the end of the day, if the DM walks out, your game ends. The DM can always replace a player.

There is a logical fallacy here because your conclusion that the GM's power to walk away is a game ender but a player's is not is predicated on the the presumption that "The DM can always replace a player."

But implicit in that presumption is that there is an unlimited supply of players who won't walk away. If that is true then clearly the DM in question does not suck, simply by fitting definition of the situation. The player is not walking away because of a problem with the DM, the player is walking away because there is a solid GROUP of people, DM included, who are playing a good game of a type that isn't the same as what that player is interested in.

Difference in game style preference is a completely unrelated discussion.

If the DM is just abusing power left and right, then, I assure you, the players can replace the DM EASIER than he can replace players.

 

[Raven Crowking]

This seems to me to assume a certain approach to play - that the goal of play is something like "operationally successful exploration", and thus that "optimal choices" are those that maximise territory explored and loot acquired relative to attrition of PC resources.

If the goal of play is something different, then the notion of the GM making the "optimal choices" obvious doesn't have so much bite.

I disagree with the above, very strongly.

If one is to make a choice, and that choice is to be important for that person to make, then it follows both (1) that the person be able to make a choice, and (2) that a real choice be offered.

If the optimal answer is clear prior to the option to chose, then that impinges upon (2) in direct proportion to the degree of clarity, and the degree to which the choice is optimal.

Your counter-example (the Orcus statue) seems to be in response to someone else's post, or to someone else's ideas.

What you quoted was

You can easily create a game experience where the optimal choices are not readily apparent, and player decisions are important, because they must determine what they should do. You can easily create a game experience where the optimal choices are obvious, and player decisions become unimportant because the players know what they should do; not following those optimums isn't really going to happen. You can make a game experience in which some decisions are obvious and some are not; the ones that are not are going to be the ones in which player decisions matter.

after which you follow with a scenario where the optinal choices are not readily apparent, apparently to demonstrate that the above is false:

To revisit an example I used upthread: if I deliberately place a statue of Orcus in the crypt rather than a statue of some other god or spirit, because I think the player of the paladin of the Raven Queen will enjoy interacting with it, it doesn't seem that I am making any choice obvious. Does the paladin destroy the statue? Try to cleanse it? Try to divine it's inner secrets, at the risk of being corrupted by it? No one knows until the game is actually played and the player actually makes some choices!

Similar considerations apply to including NPCs in the game. I tend to give detailed descriptions only of NPCs who will be interesting for the players to have their PCs engage with, but this doesn't mean the manner of engagement is obvious. I've certainly had players be hostile to NPCs whom I had thought might make good allies, and negotiate with NPCs whom I had assumed they would attack. These are the sorts of surprise outcomes of play that help make the game worth playing.

AFAICT, what you are writing here seems to be in exact agreement with what I wrote, and what you quoted.

Anyway, in this sort of play it makes perfect sense to include only relevant details - ie statues, NPCs etc who connect to ongoing dynamics and themes of the PCs and the unfolding gameworld - but in which doing so does not foreclose meaningful choices by players.

Hmmm. Let's backtrack for a second, shall we?

(1) I say that it is only when the optimal course is not obvious do PC decisions actually matter.

(2) You offer examples where play is interesting because the optimal course was not obvious, and the PCs made choices that surprised you (thereby changing the nature of game play, and exercising that very important power that some apparently feel doesn't exist).

(3) You then conclude that it makes perfect sense to only include relevant details, by which you mean details that "connect to ongoing dynamics and themes of the PCs and the unfolding gameworld".

This last does not follow from your argument, and begs the question of what sort of detail doesn't "connect to ongoing dynamics and themes of the PCs and the unfolding gameworld"?

It also begs the question of relevance at all -- if the PC is uninterested in the statue of Orcus, is it irrelevant? If so, should it have been included? If it is now irrelevant, and should not have been included, what happens seven sessions later, when the players bring it up again? Is it now relevant, because they express interest? And therefore, should it have been included? Does the statue exist in some sort of quantum relevant/irrelevant state until either the players express interest, or the campaign ends without them doing so? And what if it then is mentioned in the next campaign, spontaneously, by the players? How far does this superimposition of states go?

Finally, if a (or, indeed, the) goal is to "not foreclose meaningful choices by players", and you agree that a real choice being offered is impinged upon in direct proportion to the degree to which the optimal choice is clear to the players, and the degree to which the choice is optimal, then some degree of "irrelevant" detail is, in fact, relevant, because (as described in my previous post) it helps to obscure what would otherwise be obviously optimal choices.



RC


EDIT: Just to be clear:

If the goal of play is something different, then the notion of the GM making the "optimal choices" obvious doesn't have so much bite.

<snip>

To revisit an example I used upthread: if I deliberately place a statue of Orcus in the crypt rather than a statue of some other god or spirit, because I think the player of the paladin of the Raven Queen will enjoy interacting with it, it doesn't seem that I am making any choice obvious.

<snip>

I tend to give detailed descriptions only of NPCs who will be interesting for the players to have their PCs engage with, but this doesn't mean the manner of engagement is obvious.

<snip>

These are the sorts of surprise outcomes of play that help make the game worth playing.

Emphasis mine.

Either you have misread/misunderstood what I posted, or you are disagreeing while in agreement of it.

Since the described purpose of detail is to prevent choices from being obvious, and since that seems to be what you are doing with your "interesting" NPCs, your conclusion certainly does not follow from your premise, or from the examples given.


RC


EDIT to the EDIT: It should be obvious that everyone agrees that there is some cut-off where extraneous detail simply should not be prepared. Where that cut-off is is dependent upon personal taste....but will have an effect on how obvious optimal choices are. Again, no one is fooled by a wolf-in-sheep's-clothing in a world where bunnies or stumps are never otherwised mentioned. In a world with neither colour nor texture, camouflage is of little value.

RC

 

[Raven Crowking]

If the DM is just abusing power left and right, then, I assure you, the players can replace the DM EASIER than he can replace players.

Indeed, and good post!

 

[Hussar]

The problem, BryonD, is that you are assuming that either the DM or the player is a problem. You're taking the extreme. The DM in the quote above isn't abusing his powers apparently. Nor, in the jumping example further above, was the DM abusing his powers either.

But, both are exercising far greater powers at the table than the players can. A player cannot declare house rules at the table. A player cannot end the campaign for everyone at the table.

Are you saying that a DM cannot do either of those things?

---------------

Just so I'm clear here. I'm not saying that players have no power at the table. That's obviously not true. I am saying, however, that the DM has the lions share of the power at the table. The DM can veto any chargen choice the player makes. The DM can add or subtract rules at any point in time. In fact, all rules are subject to Rule 0 in D&D (does 4e have an explicit Rule 0?), which means that all rules are subject to the DM's interpretation.

None of this is true for the players.

Is there anyone out there that thinks that there is even remotely parity in power at the table in D&D between the players and the DM?