Why I don't GM by the nose

[Raven Crowking]

Since you missed the point, let me restate that two things not being equal does not make the situation unfair. The game is designed to include a facilitator, so claiming that inherently creates an unfairness would be inaccurate.

I'm getting very, very tired of wanting to XP you when I cannot do so until I XP more people. Could you please make less praiseworthy posts for the next week or two?

Thank you.



RC

 

[howandwhy99]

I'll split this, if there is interest. But a page or two back in the thread there was some talk about plots and settings.



I'm curious as to how folks are defining plot. I don't care for predetermined ones, but I do have a world behind the screen. This isn't just earth, plants, animals, and the like. It is also NPCs, NPC knowledge maps, NPC relationships maps, and predetermined behaviors for all of these (they are just more maps). It's a sandbox game as it's called.

So is the plot what the players goals are? There actions and mine in response?

Is the plot the maps behind the screen?

Does WoW have plots, beyond quests?

What about other games like Chess? What is its plot?

What is the plot of poker?

Other questions come to mind for these games like genre, character, tropes, setting, mood, voice, etc. How do they relate to Go, Chess, Poker, Gin Rummy, or even Tetris?

My understanding of plot for these games is world-as-plot games. I don't think setting really addresses all of what that means. To me, that's like thinking plot is everything I do in life, setting is what everyone and everything else does.

 

[BryonD]

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?

This is a red herring.
Of course the DM can do these things.
Pushing you back to the actual point - the player's power to walk from the table is far more powerful than a house rule.

But, following your new direction - Who cares? If you point is now that the other players will still play then clearly the DM isn't the problem. Again, you claimed the DM ended the game and the player's power was not equitable. If the topic at hand *DM Power* is the problem, then your statement is very simply wrong. The players can readily end the game. If ONE player is upset and FOUR others are happy to keep playing then it isn;t a lack of player power, it is just a fact that one whiny spoiler can't end the fun for everyone else.

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?

And again, parity of power at the table isn't the point of debate. It seems to me you have lost that debate and now are retconning the whole conversation.

An all-powerful iron fisted unbending DM who ALSO runs an awesome game that people are thrilled to be a part of is not a problem needing resolution.

You said the DM has the power to end the game (true) and players don't (the false part). That remains false and no list of DM powers will change that.

 

[Hussar]

Since you missed the point, let me restate that two things not being equal does not make the situation unfair. The game is designed to include a facilitator, so claiming that inherently creates an unfairness would be inaccurate.

Oh, wait a second. Hang on here.

Who said anything about being unfair?

I said the power distribution was unequal. I said nothing at all about fairness.

Is this what BryonD is going on about? I kinda lost track there. I never said anything about the fact that the DM has 99% of the power being unfair. It's not. Of COURSE the DM has 99% of the power.

All rules in D&D are subject to Rule 0. Rule 0 is only available to the DM. So, the DM has the lions share of the power at the table.

Note, nothing in there actually makes any value judgement at all.

But, seeing this, now I understand where the disagreement is coming from.

 

[Mal Malenkirk]

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

Ugh. I just picked up the serie recently and I love it but am not to Crow yet. Are you warning me that quality sharply declines?

I hope not; hate when an author does that once I'm so deep in the serie I feel compelled to finish it anyway!

 

[Dausuul]

Ugh. I just picked up the serie recently and I love it but am not to Crow yet. Are you warning me that quality sharply declines?

I hope not; hate when an author does that once I'm so deep in the serie I feel compelled to finish it anyway!

Sharply? Don't know that I'd say that. But it was something of a disappointment, for me anyway.

Without giving away any plot details, Martin decided to split up books 4 and 5, giving half the established points of view to one and half to the other. Then he added a bunch of new PoVs to "Feast" to round it out. IMO, this is always a mistake when you're several books into a series; the audience is deeply invested in the existing PoVs by this point, which makes the new ones feel like filler.

More serious for the long-term health of the series, many of the new points of view are heading off in different directions. They introduce tangential storylines that don't look like they're going to join up with the main branches anytime soon. There's a lot of new threads being added into the narrative and very few old threads being tied off.

Whether this is the harbinger of an overall decline in series quality, or a one-off dip, remains to be seen. In large part I think it depends on whether Martin recognizes the need to prune his plot tree; "Song of Ice and Fire" is in some danger of descending into the morass that swallowed "Wheel of Time." The fact that we're five years out from "Feast" and he's still working on the next volume is an ominous sign to me--it suggests that the plot is continuing to sprawl--but we'll see how it goes.

(Oh, yeah. Did I mention you have to wait years and years between books? That's the real problem with "Song" at the moment.)

 

[Mal Malenkirk]

"Song of Ice and Fire" is in some danger of descending into the morass that swallowed "Wheel of Time."

Well, now I am scared.

I rather liked the 'Eye of the World' but after two books I started wondering if the author knew what he was doing and by the fifth I knew for sure he didn't. He had an endgame in mind but no damn clue how to get there!

Also, I quickly realized that Robert Jordan wrote every single female characters the same way. Only difference is hair colours and the speed at which they'd get angry. This became increasingly annoying as the odds of a good payoff decreased.

 

[Dausuul]

Well, now I am scared.

I rather liked the 'Eye of the World' but after two books I started wondering if the author knew what he was doing and by the fifth I knew for sure he didn't. He had an endgame in mind but no damn clue how to get there!

Also, I quickly realized that Robert Jordan wrote every single female characters the same way. Only difference is hair colours and the speed at which they'd get angry. This became increasingly annoying as the odds of a good payoff decreased.

Well, I said it's in danger of it; I didn't say it's done it yet. And George R. R. Martin is a better writer than Robert Jordan in a lot of ways, including his portrayal of female characters. To me, the lights are flashing yellow right now. If the next book continues the pattern, that's when they turn red.

 

[Mal Malenkirk]

Well, I said it's in danger of it; I didn't say it's done it yet. And George R. R. Martin is a better writer than Robert Jordan in a lot of ways, including his portrayal of female characters. To me, the lights are flashing yellow right now. If the next book continues the pattern, that's when they turn red.

All right, let's just hope that Crows and the 5th book of 'Fire and Ice' will turn out to be kinda like the relation between 'Half-Blood Prince' and 'Deathly Hallows'

Thanks for the feedback. I will just hope for the best.

 

[BryonD]

Is this what BryonD is going on about? I kinda lost track there.

Can't really help you if you can't keep track of your own statements.

But, while "fair" wasn't specifically part of what I was responding to, you very explicitly commented on power to end a game. Clearly you were defining a serious problem when your point hinges on the termination of the game.

Now, I did leap to the conclusion that, beyond incorrect declarations of who can and can't end a game, you had some meaningful point about a problem you perceived. But if you meant to say nothing more insightful than "DMs have more ways to effect events inside the game", then, my bad, I'll just move along...

Though the specific quote I replied to remains wrong....