A DM by any other name

[ExploderWizard]

I can't really agree with how you characterize the DM/Player relationship in my examples. I think you're adding things that really are not there.

Keep in mind that my examples describe an extremely small slice of the general D&D action. In fact, my examples refer directly to the phase in which a player is determining what their character does and how their character acts. In my opinion, this is a place where it is perfectly fine for the DM to take a step back. The DM has already created the setting and situation, has had opposing forces make their moves, and has set the tone for the entire event. The DM has done plenty, and at that point pretty much anything the player does will cause interaction between the two and significant DM involvement.

We are not talking about taking away the DM's power to do the most important elements of what the DM must do; we are discussing the ability of the DM to intervene and control a PC's actions. Basically, we are talking about how much the DM should have the ability to control what the players can do and how the players can react to a situation. From the opposite perspective from the DM's, this is about the player's freedom to determine how their own character works and what their own character can do. This is about the DM being able to trust the player's opinions and perspective and accept that, even if there are differences, the player knows best on what actions are appropriate or not. This is about whether the DM should be the players' coach in addition to being the other team and the referee.

Overall, I think the players should be the final authority for their own characters, rather than the DM.

Anyways, there really at least three different ways I can think of that this situation could be approached.

1) The DM arbitrates player actions. The DM controls all aspects of the situation, and any action by a PC requires either information from the DM or explicit permission by the DM. This need is generally implicit in the rules rather than explicit, but it is still there. This is what I would call the old-school approach that is often derided as "Mother May I?".

2) The rules arbitrate player actions. The situation is formally controlled by the rules whenever possible, with only unusual situations falling under DM control. This kind of game tends to use things like a battle grid, strong and complete rules, and strongly codified player abilities. This is the 4E-style approach that is often derided as "boardgamey" or "videogamey".

3) The players arbitrate player actions. The situation is equally controlled by everyone at the table, and everyone has a clear ability to create elements of the setting and situation to suit their needs. Players don't need to ask the DM if a chandelier exists because they are free to write the chandelier into the setting themselves. This is more the indie RPG approach that is derided as a "storygame, not a real RPG".

I suppose all three are equally valid, but they feature incredibly different and often incompatible playstyles that require very different rules. Personally, I'm fine with 2 and would be interested in 3, but would prefer to avoid 1. This really is a matter of taste, not absolute superiority, so I'm not sure I could be convinced to like 1.

Unless there is some sort of magical compulsion in effect the player should always get to react to situations in whatever manner they choose. The DM can, if desired, give advice on what might seem like a wise or foolhardy course of action (especially for new players) but the final decision should always remain with the player.

That being established, the outcome, or resolution of activities will be determined by a combination of the actions of the player, the rules in play, and any relevant information known by the DM.

In other words, the player is free to attempt anything but not to determine success with autonomy. So when something improvised is initiated by the player, he/she doesn't have to ask " Mother may I?" to begin a particular course of action.

The real issue at hand isn't about having to ask permission to do anything its about getting to say, I do X, AND I get the result I was looking for regardless of circumstances that I may or may not be aware of. That is complete rubbish in any game with a participating GM.

If the rules are the sole arbiter of outcomes then there is little reason for there to be a GM at all. At that point a CRPG will serve just as well for all intents and purposes because the flexibility of human interaction has been lost.

 

[Emerikol]

I agree ExploderWizard.

If the game really is detailed out with every possibility defined why not just play a computer game. Save the DMs time. The whole point of a pen and paper rpg is that you really can try anything.

 

[TwoSix]

The problem is that good DMs are not super common and bad DMs often screw it up. The reality though is that bad DMs will never get good if they are put into a rules system were they function great no day one. They'll just remain bad forever. So I'd prefer the new DMs hit a few road bumps (and preferrably play with a good DM to learn) and become good. Because a good DM and group are the best fun.

If they're functioning "great", then how are they bad DMs?

 

[Emerikol]

If they're functioning "great", then how are they bad DMs?

I'm going to give you absurd illustration just to make a point.

If I told DMs to just set all DC's including Armor classes for everything to 10 and allow no modifiers to the players d20 roll and make every monster have 10 hit points, the game would be simple and any fool DM could run it. And maybe if that is the only game you ever ran you might think its good. Until you actually tried a real game.

Another example. If you are used to eating at the greasy spoon restaurant with mediocre food, you might believe that food is good. If you never try to good restaurant down the street then you've lost something even if you don't know it.

A good DM is a real treasure. It's why I believe I can have a line at my door to play any campaign I run. It's why I can sit down and tell all the players "No arguments about rules at the table and if you can't handle that rule then leave now. Debates in the off time are allowed because everyone makes mistakes. We aren't derailing the game though while it's going."

So the ideal for me is players becoming DMs after they've ran with a good DM. I know this is not always possible. But I think they should think hard at WOTC on how to convert DMs from mediocre to good. Because that will grow the hobby. I do not think they should create a ruleset that forces all DMs to be mediocre and then tell them that mediocre is the new good.

 

[ExploderWizard]

Also in my experience, I find that players become more immersed and RP their character more accurately when they calculate their own numbers and reference their sheets. There is more of a sense of ownership when they do some of the work (and it frees up brainpower for the DM to run the world in their head).

I have found the opposite to be true. All the calulations and futzing about with calculating numbers means the players are interacting with the rules far more than with the setting.

As far as freeing up brainpower for running the world why bother? If the setting is nothing more than a color backdrop against which the players interact with rules via character sheets then why spend so much time developing and working on it?

The setting is the common ground shared by the DM and players and it should matter during the meat and potatoes of actual play. Honestly, whats the point of all the setting details if the player is just zoning out until they hear " DC 25" at which point they grab the dice like some programmed automoton.

As a player, I want to interact with the game world which means dealing with as few rules as possible during play.

 

[TwoSix]

As a player, I want to interact with the game world which means dealing with as few rules as possible during play.

But isn't that the crux of the issue? Where is the game world?

Is it in the DM's imagination, and its up to the DM to make sure the players understand the parameters of what he knows to be real?

Or is it shared between all the players, with the DM and players having different layers of responsibility, and the game engine serving as the arbiter for what truly exists in the game world?

I prefer the second, and would like to see D&D be more like a story game, because story games are awesome, and not enough D&D players have been exposed to them yet.

 

[Emerikol]

But isn't that the crux of the issue? Where is the game world?

Is it in the DM's imagination, and its up to the DM to make sure the players understand the parameters of what he knows to be real?

Or is it shared between all the players, with the DM and players having different layers of responsibility, and the game engine serving as the arbiter for what truly exists in the game world?

I prefer the second, and would like to see D&D be more like a story game, because story games are awesome, and not enough D&D players have been exposed to them yet.

Obviously we want all varieties of games to exist. But D&D has traditionally been at least somewhat simulationist or process-simulationist some say. It has also dominated the market during that time. So when D&D becomes a story game I think it will be dead. Story games are a niche within the rpg niche.

 

[ExploderWizard]

But isn't that the crux of the issue? Where is the game world?

Is it in the DM's imagination, and its up to the DM to make sure the players understand the parameters of what he knows to be real?

Or is it shared between all the players, with the DM and players having different layers of responsibility, and the game engine serving as the arbiter for what truly exists in the game world?

I prefer the second, and would like to see D&D be more like a story game, because story games are awesome, and not enough D&D players have been exposed to them yet.

The game world is created through the process of actual play. A given group could start a campaign in Greyhawk which might share some characteristics with other games running in that setting but the true living game world will exist only for that particular group.

A setting evolves through actual play, no matter if it is homebrew or published. The experiences of the group help shape and define it. Interacting with the game world instead of the rules places the setting in the imagination of everyone at the table.

D&D is a roleplaying game not a story game. There are great story games out there. Enough of them in fact, that D&D doesn't need to become one.

I enjoy roleplaying games and story games but I do not think that a particular game type needs to be transformed into another.

 

[Neonchameleon]

What isn't ok though (FOR ME) is when spells/powers are written so tightly that they can't be used innovatively. When you look at the stat block and you know that is it. 4e fostered that approach even if a DM could overcome it. And I don't disagree that 3e started us down this path.

I couldn't disagree more. 4e powers are tightly written in the way B/X spells are. The B/X fireball doesn't mention that it doesn't set things on fire - it has no need to do that, instead preferring to consider it obvious. We've had plenty of creative power use at my table initiated by the players - and not just of utility powers and rituals.

The problem is that good DMs are not super common and bad DMs often screw it up. The reality though is that bad DMs will never get good if they are put into a rules system were they function great no day one. They'll just remain bad forever. So I'd prefer the new DMs hit a few road bumps (and preferrably play with a good DM to learn) and become good. Because a good DM and group are the best fun.

The trouble doing that is that you condemn most people with some potential to DM to never actually get there. To me the best thing you can do is DM a good game that goes well so you have this knowledge and this feeling to fall back on. Do that preferably before you hit a few bumps and you will be equipped to feel that the whole thing is going off the rails and how.

I'm going to give you absurd illustration just to make a point.

If I told DMs to just set all DC's including Armor classes for everything to 10 and allow no modifiers to the players d20 roll and make every monster have 10 hit points, the game would be simple and any fool DM could run it.

You've never played Wushu or 3:16, have you? The rules aern't a whole lot more complicated than that - and I really recommend Wushu. But that doesn't mean any fool can run them - and they produce excellent games that D&D doesn't touch for what they do. Even your so-called absurd illustration fails to make your point.

A good DM is a real treasure. It's why I believe I can have a line at my door to play any campaign I run.

Interesting. Because I know a lot of good 4e DMs. I have literally never been at a 4e table where there weren't at least three players capable of DMing a year long campaign (in some cases they hadn't started DMing at that point but ran a campaign later). One of the two times I've had a bad 4e DM I recall a week with five players at the table. Four of us were better DMs than the person DMing at that point. A good DM in 4e IME is normal.

And for the record, you'd need to be truly impressive at something to make my standards for a good DM if you can't work out how to improvise with 4e powers.

It's why I can sit down and tell all the players "No arguments about rules at the table and if you can't handle that rule then leave now. Debates in the off time are allowed because everyone makes mistakes. We aren't derailing the game though while it's going."

This may be the problem you have. We've demistified DMing in 4e. When one campaign comes to an end and we're discussing what to do next, there will always IME be at least two players other than the previous DM pitching a campaign. With about half the player base DMing and roughly two thirds of them able to DM pretty well with the assistance of the tools provided you no longer get to sit on your DM's throne and gain automatic respect just for that. You need to actually be able to bring it - with something approaching a third of the 4e player base being good DMs it's the players not the DM who get to pick and choose.

And isn't "Debates in the off time - for now we continue" just normal play? Although I'm not sure; I haven't looked up a 4e rule in more than a year while DMing.

 

[TwoSix]

This may be the problem you have. We've demistified DMing in 4e. When one campaign comes to an end and we're discussing what to do next, there will always IME be at least two players other than the previous DM pitching a campaign. With about half the player base DMing and roughly two thirds of them able to DM pretty well with the assistance of the tools provided you no longer get to sit on your DM's throne and gain automatic respect just for that. You need to actually be able to bring it - with something approaching a third of the 4e player base being good DMs it's the players not the DM who get to pick and choose.

If it's that easy, it just can't be "REAL DMING" (tm)