A DM by any other name

[Shadeydm]

If there's any wrestling to be done the DM wins. Every time. But if there's no need to wrestle, letting the PCs add touches to the gameworld increases player involvement and investiture, and keeps the scene moving. If the player is managing to rewrite rather than add colour to the adventure, you can tell them no. Or you can work it in.

Thats fine you shoot me an email between sessions and say hey I was thinking I'd like some family ties to that new NPC I'm all about it and I'll shoehorn the heck out of things to make it work if i can.
But you bust out in the middle of the session and say surprise he is my long lost uncle all I can say is Oh H*ll No!

 

[Libramarian]

I have to disagree with Exploder Wizard and Scylla. I think they are taking the argument too far.

IMO, the goals of say, Rule of DM players and Rule of Rules players are the same. They want to envision what their characters might do and then execute it. Neither necessarily wants to control success. It's a question of process, not results.

Rule of DM players (in general) desire a certain freeform process that, for them, allows them to innovate and improvise, be it as player or DM. They don't want to spend a lot of time on system/rule mastery.

Rule of Rules (in general) players desire a consistent, stable process that, for them, allows them to make informed action decisions without a lot of intangible variability.

Since I harped on TwinBahamut's examples, it's only fair to provide my own:

Rule of DM
DM: This huge, 7 1/2 foot ogre is standing just inside the door 30 feet away, swinging his club.
Player: I shoot across the room and hurl myself on his back.
DM (improvising): Okay, roll under your Dex score.
Player: 12.
DM: Okay, you're hanging on his back. You hamper his movement, and he's trying to swipe you off. (DM decides the ogre gets -2 to attack rolls.)

Rule of Rules
DM: You see it's an ogre.
Player (surveys minis on map, mentally counts squares): He's close enough. I run over and jump on his back, hitting him with the pommel of my sword and grabbing around his neck. Stranglehold: Encounter, vs. AC, 2d8+20 damage, and he's Dazed until the end of my next turn.
DM: Okay. Make your roll. (Everyone knows that Dazed means the ogre only gets one action, can't take immediate or opportunity actions, grants CA, and can't flank.)
Player: 12, +20 is 32. Damage is (rolls)...35.
DM: You've banged him up and he's Dazed. (Puts a little Dazed keyring on the ogre mini.)

It's the same basic thing: player thinks what they want to do, says it, and rolls to succeed. The difference is the process. In the first example the DM makes the call on what the player needs to roll, and what the effects of success are. In the second, everything has already been worked out, so the DM merely makes sure the player isn't misusing the rule, and notes the damage and condition of the monster.

For some folks, the quick and easy way of the former keeps them in the game. They don't need to know what effects their grab on the ogre will specifically do. That's one aspect of the fun. For other folks, that uncertainty is a hobgoblin of the mind, hampering their enjoyment.

For some folks, the codified and transparent workings of the game keep them in the game. It helps them think of plans and tactics down the line. Another player realizes they can play off of the ogre's new condition. There's no uncertainty about how things work; only in whether it will work or not. For other players, the extra time taken to make clear a power not everyone's familiar with takes them out of the game, or they feel constrained from trying improvise, because everything's so clearly codified.

Some folks are like me, and feel comfortable in either situation.

Here's an important technique for increasing the player's tactical traction within the Rule of DM style: just tell the players the odds and the stakes, and then ask "are you sure?"

Like so:

DM: This huge, 7 1/2 foot ogre is standing just inside the door 30 feet away, swinging his club.
Player: I shoot across the room and hurl myself on his back.
DM (improvising): Okay, if you roll under your Dex score you'll be hanging from this back hampering his movement, giving him a -2 to attack rolls. Still want to try it?
Player: Yeah! *rolls*

Generally you start out doing this, and then shift to a more natural dynamic as you build trust and chemistry with the players.

 

[Grabuto138]

When its time to write a story together heck yeah.

Actual play isn't a narrative, its actual play. Actual play is happening now, in the moment. If you are narrating an adventure you aren't participating in it.

I am not disagreeing with you. I just don't understand. Maybe we have different definitions of "narrative" etc, Please clarify.

 

[Grabuto138]

I'm not against you doing this in your games. It though is pretty far afield playstyle wise from the typical D&D campaign. Obviously for other games it's right at home. I am curious though if this is your style of game why you even play D&D. Even 4e.

For me I wouldn't touch this playstyle with a ten foot pole. But that's just my preference. As both a DM and as a player, I much prefer a world be far more defined ahead of time.

Why? A group of friends get together and play a collaborative game. The Dm runs the world and the players live in it. At certain decision points the DM will make assumptions about my character background. At other decision points I will make assumptions about my character background. We are all friends; we all want to play in a good campaign; we all want to have fun; we are all working towards the same goal. So we work together and create pretty awesome campaigns, game worlds, role playing sessions and, well, we just kind of play Dungeons and Dragons.

Edit: I was probably too obtuse in my response. Even if you were a full-time Dm, paid by the hour, you could not fill out all the details of an entire world. Worlds are big and complex. Pleyers are a great resource. Also, the only thing that matters in the game world are the aspects that effect the players. Everything else is masturbation. Why not let the players become actively engaged in the world? Why not let them help?

 

[JamesonCourage]

I'm kinda confused why this is even being discussed at length. It's purely a playstyle thing, and I really doubt they're going to have anything resembling "my uncle worked with you" in the base (assumed) rules. Anyone that wants to play that way now can, and if it works for their group, awesome; people that don't want to play that way don't have to if it doesn't work for their group.

Is the discussion just curiosity? Just a slight derailment? I just don't want people to start arguing over something that isn't going to be an actual problem in 5e (if it's back to 4e martial "narrative control" powers, that makes sense to me). As always, play what you like

 

[Steely_Dan]

Makes or breaks a game.

If you are not a good DM (which entails so many things), give it up.

Not everyone's a winner, as my grandmother used to say.

 

[Neonchameleon]

Thats fine you shoot me an email between sessions and say hey I was thinking I'd like some family ties to that new NPC I'm all about it and I'll shoehorn the heck out of things to make it work if i can.
But you bust out in the middle of the session and say surprise he is my long lost uncle all I can say is Oh H*ll No!

Long lost uncle I'm going to need a lot of warning about, even if I accept, agreed. On the other hand the idea that a PC - in their between 15 and 2000 years of life - knows someone who is connected to a famous NP neither significantly changes the PC, my focal NPC, nor the relationship between them. It can therefore be added as colour without having to re-write anything. And that was the exanple presented.

Makes or breaks a game.

If you are not a good DM (which entails so many things), give it up.

Not everyone's a winner, as my grandmother used to say.

Therefore no one should ever start DMing?

DMing is a skill (or collection of skills) that can be learned. Not something you either can or can't do.

 

[ExploderWizard]

I am not disagreeing with you. I just don't understand. Maybe we have different definitions of "narrative" etc, Please clarify.

To clarify, narrative is a story. There is no story during active gameplay. The narrative is derived from the events which took place.

So when it comes to influencing the narrative, as it were, it applies to the telling of the tale not to the resolution of the activities that influenced the tale.

TL/DR version: actual play is not storytelling. A player in the role of adventurer is not narrating his/her actions in a story. The player is actually relating to the DM and other players what his/her character is doing in the moment.

The role of co-storyteller is another matter. That matter has nothing to do with D&D.

 

[TwoSix]

Haven't tried what inventing stuff about the DMs NPCs and making wild assumptions about them without knowing what role they are intended to play in the adventure/campaign? Um no i have more respect for the work the DM puts into his game than that.

Well, I meant an actual game like Spirit of the Century, or Dresden Files, or Burning Wheel, but I think you answered my question indirectly.

 

[TwoSix]

I'm kinda confused why this is even being discussed at length. It's purely a playstyle thing, and I really doubt they're going to have anything resembling "my uncle worked with you" in the base (assumed) rules. Anyone that wants to play that way now can, and if it works for their group, awesome; people that don't want to play that way don't have to if it doesn't work for their group.

Is the discussion just curiosity? Just a slight derailment? I just don't want people to start arguing over something that isn't going to be an actual problem in 5e (if it's back to 4e martial "narrative control" powers, that makes sense to me). As always, play what you like

Well, exactly this sort of playstyle was discussed in the 4e DMG2, so it's certainly valid as a topic of interest as to its inclusion.