Something, I think, Every GM/DM Should Read

[pemerton]

if immersion is one of your goals, better that the GM rules and the game moves on.

I noted this upthread - or maybe in one of the crossover threads with much the same posters. It was in response to something posted by Jameson Courage, explaining why he(?) doesn't like narrative-style play, precisely because it breaks immersion.

it may be a "Fate Point" at your table; it is not so at all tables. And, if a DM chooses not to treat powers as "Fate Points", that does not making her a bad DM!

I never said that it makes the GM a bad one. In my previous post to this one (#370 upthread) I said that

For some rulesets, it's just not true that the GM has the level of power over the game of being entitled to say "yes" or "no" to a player's call in respect of any of his/her PC's action. Now for some potential players, that might be a reason to avoid those rulesets, or to add such a rule into the way they play the game.​

But I do think that treating powers in a non-Fate Point fashion is departing from the general orientation of the 4e rules. At least in my mind, the most coherent reading of the 4e rules is the Fate Point/"distributed narrative authority" reading. And I believe that this reading is supported by the designer sidebars in DMGs 1 and 2.

That contention seems in conflict with the bit you quoted about the DM being allowed to change the outcome of die rolls and interpret the rules. Indeed, it seems to be in conflict with any passage in the RAW which states that the DM can disallow a power if he feels it doesn't make sense.

I agree there is a degree of tension. As I've posted in the past, the 4e rulebooks aren't entirely coherent. Some people think this is the inevitable consequence of trying to right a rulebook that will appeal to a wide spectrum of gamers. That may be so, although I tend to think that some of the incoherence also comes from a reluctance on the part of the writers to drop some of the conventions of earlier D&D editions in their presentation, even though those conventions don't really fit with the overall direction of 4e - ie my diagnosis tends to be one of overcautious conservatism on the part of the rules writers, rather than the necessity for them to maintain mass appeal (of course, the two are related to an extent).

All of that said, in my view the tension is not terribly great. For example, the treatment of powers as Fate Points doesn't mean the GM has no interpretation to undertake, because there is a lot to the game's action resolution mechanics besides powers - for example there are rituals, and also the interrelated devices of skill checks, skill challenges and page 42. All of these requires interpretation and adjudication by the GM, which the rules make amply clear.

But I'm curious as to which bits of text you have in mind when you talk about "passage in the RAW which state(s) that the DM can disallow a power if he feels it doesn't make sense". I'm not familiar with such passages, but that could be because I have selective memory for the parts of the rules that support (my view of) the most coherent reading of them.

Back when, when the complaint was that 4e removed quite a bit of DM power to run a game, these sections were pointed out vehemently by some of the same people wanting to minimize their impact now.

Well I wasn't such a person. I've never been coy in expressing my belief that 4e does change the role of the GM in certain aspects of action resolution, and even encounter design (the DC guidelines, for example), from traditional D&D. That's why I play it. (And the rules of previous versions of D&D in relation to these matters were one of the reasons why I didn't play them very much - this is especially true for 2nd ed AD&D.)

One interesting thing, which I've also commented on before, is that in some respects the tone of Essentials tends to hark back to those earlier approaches to the game. Upthread I posted the following extract from the Rules Compendium (page 9):

Referee: The DM decides how to apply the game rules and guides the story. If the rules don't cover a situation, the DM determines what to do. At times, the Dm might alter or even ignore the result of a die roll if doing so benefits the story.​

The corresponding passage in the original 4e PHB (at page 8) reads:

Referee: When it’s not clear what ought to happen next, the DM decides how to apply the rules and adjudicate the story.​

I regard the difference between these two passages as more than merely a difference of wording. I think that they state two different roles for the GM - in particular, the Essentials one is closer to 2nd ed AD&D/White Wolf-style versions of the GM's role and power to suspend the action resolution rules, although what is said is perhaps not quite as strong as some of those statements from other, earlier rulebooks.

Moreso than the changes in character building, which simply increase the range of options available, it is this change in the game's rules that makes me relatively unimpressed by Essentials. (It should also be noted that Essentials doesn't eleminate the incoherence. The statement I've quoted about the GM's power to suspend the action resolution mechanics for the sake of story, for example, doesn't fit at all well with the Rules Compendium's presentation of skill challenges, which makes fairly clear - especially via the example - that the whole point of a skill challenge is to turn a starting situation into a story via the application of the action resolution mechanics.)

I don't play (and have never played) 4e, so I'm not sure how all the new kids are doing it, but back in my day (re: 30+ years ago), the DM was there to *adjudicate* situations. If he was lucky, it was a simple yes/no decisions. Alas, players (well, at least in my day) were a crafty bunch, and would find the most unusual ways to use a rope, a grappling hook, a block of cheese and a 7' ladder to open a stuck door...and in that case, it's not a yes/no decision. As a DM I was forced to think about the situation, then using my experience and expertise in the rules system come up with a likelihood of success.

4e also has elements like this, where the rules make it clear that the role of the GM is to adjudicate such matters in the way you describe.

But not all elements of 4e are like this. Some elements of 4e - the so-called "powers" - are things that a player can have his/her PC do. They are not unusual, or the result of crafty play. They are analogous to an AD&D PC making an attack or receiving a saving throw.

In the AD&D DMG Gygax writes that the PC is always entitled to a saving throw, even if the situation seems hopeless, not because it is realistic (within the fiction) but because the PC always has a chance of some last-minute luck or escape - a chance that is much higher in the mechanics than in the fiction. In my view, 4e powers make the most sense when read in this sort of way.

When an AD&D fighter chained to a rock with a shackled neck and eyes propped open by matchsticks nevertheless makes a save against the medusa's gaze, the rules don't encourage the GM to veto that save based on a sense of realism. They make it clear that the GM's role should be to narrate some last-second piece of luck - perhaps the shackle slipped or broke and the fighter managed to turn his or her head at the final instant.

Similarly, when a 4e fighter uses a power to knock a snake prone, the rules don't encourage the GM to veto that act based on a sense of realism. They make it at least tolerably clear that the GM's role should be to help the player narrate some lucky blow or trick or whatever that resulted in the snake being flipped or winded or otherwise in a worse position than it was.

with regards to knocking a snake prone, the DM's job wasn't just to veto player ideas "just because the rules don't cover it" or becaus the "rules don't say that".

In 4e, this will typically come up because the rules do cover it - namely, the PC in question has a power that lets him/her knock things prone (even snakes, which as per the rules don't have any general immunity to being knocked prone).

So what we're talking about here, in relation to 4e, is not an action the rules don't cover, but rather the GM houseruling on the fly so as to prevent a player using a PC ability in a way that the rules, as written, fully contemplate and permit.

In the case of the snake/prone thing, perhaps I'd let the PC 'knock the snake around' in such a way that it becomes somewhat disoriented, granting the 'prone' adjustments, but also rule that the snake doesn't have to take time to 'stand up' from a prone position, so as soon as the characters attack is over, the snake is back to normal.

That could be one way to go, although I personally don't feel the attraction of it. Are snakes so underpowered that they need a special power of righting themselves that the rules as written don't grant them? Is verisimilitude so threatened by a snake, like every other monster, needing to spend a move action to right itself?

My feeling is that this sort of "special case" approach to snakes is pushing against, rather than playing with, the key features of 4e as a ruleset. I can see why you might do it if there are some features of 4e you like (perhaps the generally slick monster and encounter design) but you don't like the non-simulationism. But add in enough of these sorts of special cases and you're perhaps starting to lose some of those other features too.

Are we even talking about a 4e power that knocks a foe prone at this point? If the player has a power called, "Prone Punch" that says that they do unarmed attack damage AND knock the foe Prone then that doesn't mean the execution must be described as a punch.

If the player says, "I want to use Prone Punch on the snake." and your reply is, "I cannot envision a way to punch a snake in such a way as to make it prone." then that strikes me as rules lawyering the player by the GM. The player could justly respond, "Well I don't feel that my PC must punch the snake per se. Maybe I'll grab him and twist him, causing my normal Unarmed Attack damage and it'll take a moment for the snake to get itself untwisted and ready to attack, reflecting the Prone condition."

I can't XP Rel at the moment, but I agree entirely with this. That's why, in my view, talk about "the GM's role in adjudicating when the rules run out" or when players try tricky things, is quite inapposite when it comes to a discussion of a player's use of a PC power in 4e.

 

[Hussar]

You are never going to please everyone all of the time.
Even in my game where the bulk of us have known each other all of our lives disagreements and style clashes occur. If I am the dm and a player is having a bad night because of me, it drastically affects my "fun level". Not because of some sort of pride of "dm-ship" but because he is my firend. If I am a player and the dm and another player "get at it" it drags me down too, again, these are my friends. At the same time I have been the butt of a joke or two in my time, and while its never fun, when the rest of the table is laughing hysterically, it's hard not to shrug it off and laugh along.

I've played in some on-line games with bad dm's, bad for any number of reasons, but it seemed the game never lasted

Oh sure. Totally agree with that. It would seem that you don't put your fun ahead of everyone else's at the table - after all, if someone is not having fun, that drags down your fun too. Sounds like a perfectly healthy table to me.

But, again, what's that got to do with the idea that the DM is entitled (apparently) to over rule the mechanics when he is the sole person at the table who has a problem with the mechanics? Why is the DM the sole decider on what is plausible or not?

 

[pemerton]

That seems to be an unfair attempt to shoehorn my post into something I didn't say.

I hadn't intended to be unfair, so for that I apologise. It's just that your post - which was part of a sequence of posts about the power of GMs and/or players to "walk" - triggered the thoughts that I then posted.

I'd say what I always do: play what you like. If you want to use all the rules, use them. If you want to use no rules, don't use any. If you want to compromise, do that. If you want to let the GM decide things without questioning it, do that. It's really that simple to me.

<snip>

As far as playing with the ruleset (where the GM doesn't have the same level of veto power I commented on), I'd say play it if you like it. If you don't like it, don't play it. Pretty straightforward to me.

I can't honestly give much more advice on "how to GM well" when:
1) Enjoyment is way too subjective.

<snip>

I'm guessing the end goal is subjective enjoyment, ideally.

I think we can take for granted that the end goal is subjective enjoyment. But I think it is possible to say a lot about the various techniques that might help or hinder us on our way there.

That's why I drew the analogy to creative writing classes (or drawing classes, or dance classes, or whatever). You don't help someone learn to draw better by saying "Make your pictures more beautiful". Or by saying "Use more pink if you feel like it". You teach them about techniques of composition, shading etc. Likewise when it comes to GMing. So I don't think it's goes very far to just say "Use the rules if you like, or give the GM veto power over the rules if you like". What is more helpful, in my view, is to look in more detail at the effect that particular techniques - for action resolution, assigning narrative authority, etc - have on various aspects of the play experience, and then thinking about how those various aspects of the play experience contribute to the likelihood of subjective enjoyment.

So I guess I don't feel it's so straightforward. To give a real example: twenty years ago I used to assert, very strongly, that it was a mistake in an RPG to balance mechanical benefits via roleplaying disadvantages (as per the AD&D paladin). But it turns out, as it happens, that that sort of approach to PC building - of completely divorcing the mechanical build of the PC, and the PC's thematic location in the fiction - is in fact at odds with the sort of play experience that I am looking for. But I only learned that through a lot of reflection, reading a wide range of game rules, playing a wider range of RPGs, reading essays at The Forge, etc.

I'm not sure where you're headed with this, honestly.

I hope the previous paragraph gives you a clearer idea.

 

[pemerton]

I don't think power at the table comes from the ability to quit the game. It comes from the social contract of the people at the table.

If you say that the power in the game comes from a threat of walking, well, that's a horrible mess.

<snip>

Once it's agreed that the structure of authority is voluntary, well then it's a case of agreeing one. We can agree that the GM has the final say on rules or rulings. Or we can agree that a decision requires complete concensus. Or a simple majority. Or the flip of a coin.

We choose that structure as part of the social contract before we play. And I'd assert that such a choice may be informed by, but cannot be enforced or governed by, the rules. The social contract is self-governing, beyond the reach of the rulebook.

What I think the dreaded snake example has demonstrated is a certain incoherence in the design of 4e. I may be assuming that my prone power is giving me narrative rights as a player. You may be assuming that GM fiat is explicitly allowed in all cases. What we have is a mismatch of social contracts, and no debating over 'the rules' or citations of 'the rulebook' is going to solve it.

The problem was caused by the rules, but the solution is not within the rules.

I can't XP you yet, but think this is a great post.

As well as QingFT, I did want to add something.

What I think close attention to the rulebook can do is to help the participants in the game think through the range of possibilities, and what (presumably clever and experienced) designers had in mind as the way to play the game, and what effect those different sorts of possibilities might have on the play experience.

So the rulebook can't solve the problem, but it can help through up possible solutions. I know this because I have experienced it - that is, reading a wide range of rulebooks, paying attention to what they suggest rather than just projecting my own habits and expectations, has helped me appreciate the range of possible ways of RPGing, and GMing and RPG, and this has in turn helped settle the terms of the social contract at my table.

 

[TheUltramark]

Oh sure. Totally agree with that. It would seem that you don't put your fun ahead of everyone else's at the table - after all, if someone is not having fun, that drags down your fun too. Sounds like a perfectly healthy table to me.

But, again, what's that got to do with the idea that the DM is entitled (apparently) to over rule the mechanics when he is the sole person at the table who has a problem with the mechanics? Why is the DM the sole decider on what is plausible or not?

AS i have said, there have been times I was dead set against something, but the table basically stages a coup and overrules me, it sucks "being wrong" but you have to know when to pull the chute and give in, especially to an entire table. Now, I know my table, and have for such a long time I basically know where each person will stand on any given issue (and they know where I stand too) that is why I say with such confidence that a certain physical action against a certain reptile would never be allowed.
If I were at a table of strangers my attitude would be completely different, but that's not going to happen any time soon.

 

[Hussar]

AS i have said, there have been times I was dead set against something, but the table basically stages a coup and overrules me, it sucks "being wrong" but you have to know when to pull the chute and give in, especially to an entire table. Now, I know my table, and have for such a long time I basically know where each person will stand on any given issue (and they know where I stand too) that is why I say with such confidence that a certain physical action against a certain reptile would never be allowed.
If I were at a table of strangers my attitude would be completely different, but that's not going to happen any time soon.

Again, now this I agree with. If the DM rules against something and the rest of the table agrees with the DM, then fair enough, no harm no foul. Everyone's happy. And, in your specific case, this is true - it's not necessarily that you are determining the plausibility of the action alone, but with the consensus of the entire table.

Isn't this what I've been advocating all the way along in this thread? I'm sorry, I thought you were going the other way with this - that the DM doesn't need the consensus of the table. My bad for misunderstanding.

 

[pemerton]

Every responsibility by necessity must bring with it the rights necessary to meet that responsibility.

Somewhat off-topic, this is actually a very controversial question in political and moral philosophy.

For example, the American political and moral philosopher Michael Walzer, in his work on "dirty hands", argues that politicians sometimes have duties (arising out of their public/political roles) to do things which they enjoy no moral permission to do - meaning that they are obliged to do things for which they can be justly morally sanctioned. The German social theorist Max Weber puts forward a similar argument in his famous essay on Politics as a Vocation.

A related topic of debate is whether "ought" implies "can". The majority view probably is that it does, but some significant figures disagree. For example, I think that Socrates, on the reading put forward by Raimond Gaita in Good and Evil: An Absolute Conception, probably denies that "ought" implies "can". That is, we can sometimes find ourselves in morally tragic situations where we lack the capacity to do what we are morally obliged to do.

The analogue of moral tragedy in GMing, presumably, is a GM who believes, or even knows, that the only way to give the group the play experience that they want is to do XYZ, but has a social contract at the table that precludes XYZ. I'm not sure how often this comes up, but it seems to me a conceivable source of group rupture.

An analogue of dirty hands in GMing might be when a GM in this sort of situation covertly does XYZ, so as to maintain the illusion of compliance with the social contract while in fact violating it in order to produce the group's desired play experience. Personally this strikes me as a recipe for gaming dysfunction, but I wouldn't be surprised if it happens from time to time (eg fudging in a 2nd-ed style game, where the social contract contains both "let the dice fall" and "we want a good story", but the mechanics are such that there is no guarantee that letting the dice fall will in fact produce a good story).

In the case of GMing, that includes the right to adjudicate the rules.

Isn't what is, in part, up for grabs in this discussion to what extent and in what ways the GM, in carrying out his/her responsibility, is obliged to adjudicate the rules?

I'll repeat an example I gave upthread: if a player has his/her PC knock a snake prone, and if the consensus at the table is that this means that the snake has been flipped onto its back and hence is at least moderately indisposed, then this has implications for the DC of a Perception check to notice any markings on the snake's back. In a mainstream game it is the GM who has responsibility for adjudicating this situation, and setting the DC (and I think this also relates to LostSoul's idea of "the moment of judgement").

But the GM having that particular adjudicative responsibility is quite consistent with the GM lacking any more general power to suspend the action resolution rules (eg by declaring unilaterally and spontaneously that a "knock prone" power won't work against a snake). And there is no reason to think that the GM lacking that more general power will, as a matter of necessity or even as a matter of course, deprive the GM of the capacity to deliver a fun game. Of course for certain gaming groups interested in certain sorts of fun, it might, but that turns on details about particular play experience desired (eg consensus vs immmersion vs coherent fiction vs etc, etc) and what sorts of understandings about who enjoys what authority will reliably produce that experience - which I believe to be a fairly subtle matter.

 

[pemerton]

There are a couple of threads on Story Games now that I think are relevant to some of the ideas expressed in this thread (and those by the Primer)

Thanks for the links. Interesting. It also took me back to the Lumpley Games posts about character sheets and currency that I haven't thought about for a while.

Obviously I'm of the view that 4e does have fictional positioning - both in combat and out of it - but it makes some featuers of the fiction more salient than others. The example of the DC to spot the markings on the prone snake's back is a fairly uninteresting example. Skill checks, page 42, some aspects of cover and difficult terrain, some aspects of movement and tactical location, etc are more front and centre in the game. One of the posters on the positioning thread suggested that nothing in 4e requires fictional positioning to feed into skill challenge resolution, but again I don't really think this is right. Or, at least, I'm curious: how do groups work out what is going on in a skill challenge, what each roll means, and thereby what the outcome is, if they don't rely (at least in part) on fictional positioning?

The currency stuff, on the other hand, I'm less confident about. I think a lot of the currency rules in 4e play (at least my game) are unstated and ad hoc. For example, one of the PCs in my game is a Warpriest of Moradin. Given this positioning, he was able to use both his polearm fighting abilities and his Diplomacy and Intimidate skills (both elements of effectiveness) to get some dwarf warrior NPCs to become his followers for a little while (new positioning, plus some new effectiveness and resources). In a fight with a hobgoblin-controlled Spirehorn Behemoth the behemoth used its Trample attack to take down a number of these NPCs (who, mechanically, are minions) - which meant that the behemoth won't have the trample avaiable to hurt the other PCs (so the NPCs became a resource, which was spent) but also makes the Warpriest someone who led his followers into defeat (further positioning, which has implications for the effectiveness of his Diplomacy in future dealings with the dwarves). Most of these currency rules aren't there in the rulebooks - it's my adjudication as GM, constrained by my sense of what the shared fiction permits or mandates.

Any thoughts on how to unpack this more coherently (whether in general, or in relation to 4e)?

 

[Neonchameleon]

This quote, from pg. 7 of the 1E AD&D DMG, seems most appropriate for many of these posts...

"The danger of a mutable system is that you or your players will go too far in some undesireable direction and end up with a short-lived campaign. Participants will always be pushing for a game which allows them to become strong and powerful far too quickly. Each will attempt to take the game out of your hands (out of the DM's hands) and mold it to his or her own ends."

-E. Gary Gygax

The man knew what he was talking about.

Indeed. Gary knew what he was talking about (which doesn't mean what he says applies everywhere). "The dangers of a mutable system." In the discussion in question, the system is being mutated on an ad-hoc and arbitrary basis by the DM. Turning it from a consistent and fair system into a system mutated by how well you can convince your DM to do things. The people on the side of the argument that says you shouldn't be able to knock snakes prone are the ones arguing for the more mutable system. Rulings not Rules is actively advocating a mutable system.

So thank you, that was relevant. It cut against the original document and cut against the people saying that the DM should step in to overrule the game rules so you can't knock the snake prone. Not the argument I think you wanted to make?

 

[Nagol]

I doubt the players would be able to have a ball in a game that you're not enjoying, in a practical sense. But I read "my fun first" as "my fun is more important." Is that not what you mean?

What Thasmodious said was "A big part of DMing, imo, is finding a balance where the players get to indulge their preferences without the DM sacrificing all of his."

To me, this reads as "the DM's and players' preferences are equally important at the table." The DM has to "sacrifice" in the sense that, theoretically, he can just do whatever the heck he wants since he's DM and he controls the game world. But he needs to consider the players as well, put their wants on equal footing with his, and DM accordingly.

I've certainly been in the situation where I as GM was finding no enjoyment, but the players were very happy with the campaign when I pulled the plug. There's been a variety of reasons: personal burnout in a multi-year campaign, running a genre I don't like (started as a one-shot, went over very well and I got talked into continuing over my better judgement), and the game situation spiraling into areas I didn't want to explore theme-wise.

In each case I pulled the plug because I wasn't having fun and frankly, although I can act as the entertainment facilitator for the group, I will only do so when I am enjoying it. In other words, my fun comes first.