Player Control, OR "How the game has changed over the years, and why I don't like it"

[Plane Sailing]

Please also note that I've threadbanned someone for jumping to a negative conclusion about someones position, and it is likely to happen again in the thread if people don't cool down. As Umbran said several pages ago, we expect people to behave in a civil manner and to give each other the benefit of the doubt. There has been too little giving people the benefit of the doubt in the last couple of pages.

Thanks.

 

[Mark CMG]

Similarly, when someone (. . .)

I'm discussing one situation, if you want to discuss what someone else posted, please quote them and discuss it and I will join in if I have something to post.

 

[Thasmodious]

In most traditional games e.g. Monopoly, Chess, etc., this is quite true.

But not D+D. And that's what makes it great.

Sure there's rules presented as guidelines (well, in earlier editions anyway) and for most of the time they get the job done just fine. But in a game where pretty much the only limits on what might come up are set by the collective imaginations of the players/DM/module writer/game designer there's going to be times when the rules just don't work; and they have to be flexible enough to be able to get out of the way and wise enough to know when to do so.

In other words, the rules must serve the game.

With the particular quote you responded to, and the words above, I'm not entirely sure where you're coming from, but if it's - the rules are guidelines and should be ignored at will by the DM to service his game, then I disagree.

The rules form the basis for the shared expectations of the game. Players build their characters based on those expectations. Ignoring them or changing them on a whim to suit the game has a direct effect on the characters and the expectations of the players. If I build a loremaster in 3e only to find out that the DM doesn't care much about knowledge skills, rarely calls for their use, and doesn't impart advantageous information based on such rolls, then I've wasted a lot of the resources I have to build a balanced character and the character I wanted to play is rendered largely ineffective and less fun because he took the knowledge rules to be guidelines AND didn't make this clear from the start.

I have nothing against tweaking systems and changing rules, I do this with every game and every game system I've GM'ed. I love house rules. But any and all houserules I use are clearly communicated to the group ahead of time. Similarly, I inform the group about what standard rules and subsystems I don't use (such as encumbrance or monster morale), so they won't waste character resources buying modifications to that subsystem. Similarly, I have no problem with making rulings to deal with all the wacky stuff that comes up. My preference is for systems like 4e or older editions of D&D that don't try to cover anything and want the GM to make rulings. But we all gotta know the basic rules ahead of time so we are visualizing the same game in our headspace.

Another example tied to an on going discussion in another thread, I would need to know if I was playing in a game that had a skill system, but where the DM generally based the success or failure of a skill based character action on player skill (playing 20 questions correctly while searching or disarming traps, basing RP outcomes solely on player RP, etc), because in such a game I'm wasting my time making a skill-monkey same as I would be if the game was straight up hack-n-slash. If the game has a skill system, one would expect that to be the ultimate method of skill based resolution.

Now, if that isn't the point you were trying to make, thank you for spending a couple moments reading about my general preferences

 

[Dannager]

With the particular quote you responded to, and the words above, I'm not entirely sure where you're coming from, but if it's - the rules are guidelines and should be ignored at will by the DM to service his game, then I disagree.

The rules form the basis for the shared expectations of the game. Players build their characters based on those expectations. Ignoring them or changing them on a whim to suit the game has a direct effect on the characters and the expectations of the players. If I build a loremaster in 3e only to find out that the DM doesn't care much about knowledge skills, rarely calls for their use, and doesn't impart advantageous information based on such rolls, then I've wasted a lot of the resources I have to build a balanced character and the character I wanted to play is rendered largely ineffective and less fun because he took the knowledge rules to be guidelines AND didn't make this clear from the start.

I have nothing against tweaking systems and changing rules, I do this with every game and every game system I've GM'ed. I love house rules. But any and all houserules I use are clearly communicated to the group ahead of time. Similarly, I inform the group about what standard rules and subsystems I don't use (such as encumbrance or monster morale), so they won't waste character resources buying modifications to that subsystem. Similarly, I have no problem with making rulings to deal with all the wacky stuff that comes up. My preference is for systems like 4e or older editions of D&D that don't try to cover anything and want the GM to make rulings. But we all gotta know the basic rules ahead of time so we are visualizing the same game in our headspace.

Another example tied to an on going discussion in another thread, I would need to know if I was playing in a game that had a skill system, but where the DM generally based the success or failure of a skill based character action on player skill (playing 20 questions correctly while searching or disarming traps, basing RP outcomes solely on player RP, etc), because in such a game I'm wasting my time making a skill-monkey same as I would be if the game was straight up hack-n-slash. If the game has a skill system, one would expect that to be the ultimate method of skill based resolution.

Now, if that isn't the point you were trying to make, thank you for spending a couple moments reading about my general preferences

This reflects my thoughts on the matter as well. I'd rep you for it, but apparently I need to find some more people to emphatically agree with first.

 

[LostSoul]

Why shouldn't the DM have an investment in the outcome?

I probably should have said "any specific outcome".

 

[Fifth Element]

Yes, I agree with that too. Please allow me to phrase it another way. My impression, rightly or wrongly, is that people are MORE likely to blame another person than to be self-aware of their choices in the matter. Since the see-saw naturally leans to one side, leaning back to the other side is what may right the balance somewhat.

That's fair to say, I think.

 

[Fifth Element]

I'm discussing one situation, if you want to discuss what someone else posted, please quote them and discuss it and I will join in if I have something to post.

I'm confused. I interpreted your post to refer specifically to what I posted, calling it a semantic trick. Is that not right?

 

[Lanefan]

With the particular quote you responded to, and the words above, I'm not entirely sure where you're coming from, but if it's - the rules are guidelines and should be ignored at will by the DM to service his game, then I disagree.

What I was trying to get at was more like...

I have nothing against tweaking systems and changing rules, I do this with every game and every game system I've GM'ed. I love house rules. But any and all houserules I use are clearly communicated to the group ahead of time. Similarly, I inform the group about what standard rules and subsystems I don't use (such as encumbrance or monster morale), so they won't waste character resources buying modifications to that subsystem. Similarly, I have no problem with making rulings to deal with all the wacky stuff that comes up. My preference is for systems like 4e or older editions of D&D that don't try to cover anything and want the GM to make rulings. But we all gotta know the basic rules ahead of time so we are visualizing the same game in our headspace.

...this, at least in part.

When a DM decides ahead of time i.e. pre-campaign that something doesn't work and then goes ahead and fixes it as a houserule; then clearly communicates that to the players going in, I think we all agree that's no problem whatsoever.

Where the problem arises is when the DM realizes at some point deep into the campaign that something is broken and-or doesn't work the way she envisioned it. At that point she's stuck. Making a major change to the rules in mid-campaign immediately invalidates all that has gone before (at least in my view; but I'm pretty hardcore about continuity and consistency) and so she either has to live with it for the remainder of the campaign or drop the campaign and fix what's wrong before starting another. And sometimes that fix means going to a whole different system or edition.

And I think that's what happened with Wik assuming I'm reading the original post right; though it didn't take him long to realize something wasn't working the way he wanted, he still didn't have a good way of fixing it while maintaining the same campaign in the same system.

The rules, in other words, for whatever reason weren't serving his game. And as DM/referee/whatever, that's his call to make.

The difference between this particular case and most others, however, is that it wasn't any specific rules that weren't working, but rather the philosophy behind them...which is what's making this discussion interesting.

Lan-"prismatic wars is a serious time sink"-efan

 

[Mark CMG]

I'm confused. I interpreted your post to refer specifically to what I posted, calling it a semantic trick. Is that not right?

Again, if someone else has posted something that is problematic for you, please quote them and discuss it. If I find it is something I wish to discuss with you, I will join in. I was clear about what I posted and you tried to take the discussion in a different direction over another issue ("Similarly . . .") I'm not interested in getting into a side-bicker with you or dragging the thread further from the OP's discussion.

 

[TheUltramark]

after careful consideration I would like to apologize once again for my poor choice of words when i said I play a more imaginative game. Pulling away from it- clearly it could easily be taken as an insult, and I am sorry.

I think I was just being defensive, it seemed that quite a few people were bashing my game, and my table's style of play, and our propensity to prefer the spirit of the law over its letter.

I hope this sums up my position more clearly and less combatively.