Beyond Old and New School - "The Secret That Was Lost"

[Cyberen]

am glad the "secret" of rules tinkering is not lost to everyone
I was afraid the cult of RAW had taken control of the whole country...
Concerning DM force, it is VERY CLEAR in the editions of old that the DM has unlimited power on every aspect of the game, as the presence of domination, possession, charm, illusion effects, and other niceties such as dopplegangers, intelligent swords, cursed items and corrupt artifacts make mandatory. Dark or gonzo Fantasy contains tropes mandating loss of control by the players, no less than Lovecraftian Horror. Of course, anyone can opt out of these types of game, for many reasons.
As for me, I would frame the "DM force problem" in less absolute terms. My concern is often deciding how strongly the opposition is going to react. I've found 4e answer ("in a level appropriate fashion, add up to 5 levels") eye-opening, if not satisfactory : I have a naturalistic take on the subject, where the outside force should be determined by an economy which doesn't take the PC protagonism into account, but I am open to some kind of paradigm shift. What I would love is the introduction of some "karmic currency", similar to the Doom Pool, used by DM and players alike as a special effects budget (and where durable magic puts you in debt).

 

[Ahnehnois]

Through that role-playing, they interact with the world, create and shape the plots...that actually get played, at least. If I had a nickel for all of the unused plot hooks *longing sigh* but I digress...and, in general "control" the story through their character's actions. The DM controls everything else. That's the game we call D&D. That's not edition warring or anything...that is the construct...the framework...the paradigm of how the game we call D&D is played. Players play their characters. GM controls the rest.

This bears repeating. Do whatever you want at home, but D&D, the game itself, has players who play their characters and a DM who controls evertyhing.

Does the GM have authority to rewrite PC backstories?

I wouldn't, but suppose some could.

To rewrite character sheets?

Why would anyone want to rewrite someone else's character sheet?

These kind of go hand in hand to me. One obvious reason that I've used is if the DM gives the PC some secret bloodline or emergent magical ability the player didn't know he had. This is both a revision of background and potentially a new set of abilities that pops up on the character sheet, and the player may have no say in any of it. If the DM wants the player to go on a voyage of self-discovery, it's hard to do that with things the player already knows. If one were to play the Baldur's Gate games as an rpg campaign, wherein the protagonist discovers that he is a demigod, this is exactly what would happen.

Another simpler reason might be if the PC is unbalanced and the DM decides to "fix" it by simply changing something. Not ideal, but certainly something that can happen, and that I've seen talked about in at least one of the DMGs.

Could a DM simply tell the player "move five skill ranks from Climb to Knowledge (Arcana)" simply because he feels like it? Yes, but no one is saying that every exercise of discretion is equally wise.

To direct players how they are to spend PC build resources?

Of course not. Suggest/offer guides to an inexperienced player looking for assistance/direction, sure. But as a matter of course, no.

I actually think there are a fair number of examples where this happens. For one, the scenario where a DM says to a player that certain options are inaccessible, either banned or things that you need training to do. But even giving specific instructions is entirely reasonable.

For example, in a maritime game, the DM might require that all the PCs be sailors and direct them to spend a certain number of ranks of Prof (Sailor) or Swim. In an urban game, the DM might tell everyone to take Knowledge (Local). Simply for thematic reasons, a DM might direct a player to play a particular race or class. These kinds of things come up all the time. Any time you tell the players anything other than "build whatever you want withing the books", you're telling them how to spend their resources to some extent.

And what is a pregen, if not the DM directing how the entire character is built?

The idea that players control their character's development is already a reach outside of playing the character. After all, the character doesn't control what race he is, and probably has very little control of what his ability scores are. Even his learned abilities are a mix of choices he made and external factors.

After all that, I find that giving some specific instructions to players on how to build their characters often helps create a more cohesive campaign. I do it all the time.

If a player rolls a natural 20 on a to-hit roll against an ordinary orc, is a GM nevertheless entitled to stipulate that no hit occurs and no damage is dealt? (And if so, what was the point of having the player roll the die?)

I wouldn't do this, no. For me the natural 20 is sacrosanct. I imagine, in other games/other gms might not find it so impenetrable, and be ok with letting outside things (or extremely rare/powerful situations) influence the natural 20.

Again, there is a distinction between what can be done and what is wise to do.

However, turn it around and say a player rolls a 1 on a save against a death effect. Is the DM entitled to dictate that the character survives? Sure. People do that all the time.

But even taking the orc example. What if the orc is a major NPC and the DM wants him to survive. Maybe he was expecting a brief battle first, but seeing the die result, the DM suddenly says that the orc lays down his arms and gives the players a chance to talk, effectively stepping outside the mechanics. Deus ex machina? Sure. But it is allowable. Say instead that the players have without their knowledge been transported to a demiplane where attacks are impossible (which does exist in a book somewhere IIRC). This roll of 20, nothing happens scenario might be how that is revealed.

Just saying that the attack does nothing without any reason is probably not a wise exercise of discretion, nor is doing anything without a good reason, but there are possible reasons for doing this.

Exceeeeeeept... That's exactly what it they do/it means.

Yeah.

 

[Ahnehnois]

If the player characters are protagonists, they must have agency - i.e. they must have power to act without veto. Otherwise they are not really protagonists, they are just puppets.

I don't know where this idea comes from. Agency doesn't preclude the idea of a veto. Just because the players aren't the final arbiter of any of their actions doesn't mean that they aren't influencing the game at all.

The same is true in real life. When you apply for a job, you have little or no control over whether you will get an interview, let alone an offer, but that doesn't make the choice to apply or the choices made during the application meaningless. When you walk out the door in the morning, you might get hit by a bus, which again you may or may not have any real control over, but that doesn't mean that sitting in bed all day and going outside aren't meaningful choices.

Nor is agency defined this way, nor is it in the literary definition of a protagonist. The protagonist is the main character; the conceit is that the narrative focuses on him or her. A protagonist may or may not have any influence on his own story.

Nor does any of that preclude the idea of an emergent play experience. It's entirely possible that the behavior of the players or the vagaries of the mechanics influence the DM's choices, even though he is not bound by either of those things. That can happen in all kinds of ways that are not expressed through rules-driven cause and effect.

 

[Mercurius]

I think the difference may be rather smaller than you imagine.

I was speaking directly to pemerton; unless you are pemerton and/or your view is identical to his, then yeah, sure, why not?

Of that list, the only one I would definitely exclude is "storyteller". As GM I don't know what the story will be, nor do I want to. It will emerge from play. "Worldbuilder" may also be a bit dubious for D&D (specifically). I "build" sufficient of a "world" for play to proceed, but no more; the rest is mutable to suit all the players' requirements (including mine). The rest - referee (of the rules as written), scene-setter and so on are all fine. "Overlord" is a bit overblown, but the GM's role is certainly wider than the other players'.

This is where we can see that there is some flexibility in what a DM "is." I love worldbuilding, including (and perhaps especially) big picture stuff like cosmology, world maps, etc. I often find myself fretting over the look of this or that coastline, even though I know my players will likely never even go to 90% of the places on the world map, but that doesn't stop me, for two basic reasons: One, as I said, I love worldbuilding - I do it for my own enjoyment; and two, the more work I do beyond the "edges" of game play ("ludus incognita"), the more it enriches the area of play ("ludus cognita").

I find the worldbuilding approach of stopping at what is "sufficient for play to proceed" unsatisfying both as a DM (worldbuilder) and player, because the props, so to speak, end up feeling paper thin - like the western town in Blazing Saddles. This doesn't mean I think you or anyone that takes this approach is a bad DM, by the way - there are many aspects that go into good DMing, and a great worldbuilder and otherwise poor DM still makes for a shoddy game experience (just as an excellent DM can make up for paper-thin worldbuilding and still provide an enjoyable game). It is just that this is an important aspect of D&D for me.

If the player characters are protagonists, they must have agency - i.e. they must have power to act without veto. Otherwise they are not really protagonists, they are just puppets.

I think [MENTION=17106]Ahnehnois[/MENTION] spoke to this better than I could have. My view is similar to his.

The GM creates scenarios, yes, and plot hooks and necessary background - but not the storyline. The story is formed from a synthesis of the GM's framed situation and the actions of the protagonists; without the latter it does not exist - cannot exist.

They are co-creators of the story, which to an extent you might call "the game itself", but in D&D they are not usually the co-creators of the world outside their characters. The actions of their characters might change the world, for sure - that is the very essence of being a protagonist! But the players don't generally decide the system or setting detail as such.

Yes, I agree with this. But its really a spectrum, really, from utter free form and co-created, ala the "sandbox" approach, and what is pejoratively described as "railroading." I find myself enjoying the spectrum, but preferring an approach that incorporates elements from both extremes. I like a sandbox-style basic set-up, especially at the beginning, with plot-hooks and locations and encounters, and then I like weaving together these plot-hooks, perhaps guided by some underlying (or over-arching) story ideas that I want to instigate. But it isn't about me corralling the PCs in a direction they don't want to go; its about creating a symphony in which they can improvise within - "jazz-classical."

So the DM is also the conductor - but not of a pre-written orchestral piece, but a "jazz symphony" in which improvisation is not only possible but encouraged, and which no one is absolutely sure where things will end up. Some DMs want to know and do corral the PCs, I prefer not to - although there are always plot ideas that I'll find a way in if I really like them.

As an addendum, I lost the quote, but you said you were the lone serious gamer while your players were "casual". I think this might partly explain why you feel that 4E powers "stifle creativity". I said above that, once the players get to know both the rules and their characters they tend to use their powers as resources rather than a checklist of "what to do". If your players don't/can't learn the basics of the rules thoroughly, then I'm guessing that a really rules light system would suit them better. Rules in any game really only work well if the players all know what they are.

I meant "casual" mainly in their overall interest in RPGs. I'm the only one that buys more than a book or two, that thinks about D&D beyond the session, at least significantly, or that posts on forums. But there's a range in terms of how well the players know the rules; some "get it," and some don't. And I can agree with you that for those who get it there's a lot more freedom, but...they still look at their character sheets as a menu of options (resources) and rarely improvise out of it. Or rather, they might come up with a description of what the character does and then they, the player, chooses which power fits that description (or usually vice versa). The problem being that there's a kind of artificial separation between character action and player choice (of resource).

In well designed rules there will be no clash because the places where each player (including the GM) has the power to dictate will be defined. This is one area where a lot of Indie games are really good, actually; their split of responsibility/power may be very non-traditional, but it is well defined. The rules say - as their primary function, in fact - who gets to decide what.

Well again, we disagree on the absoluteness of DM power here.

The idea that the GM "has greater knowledge of where things are going in general" is somewhat alien to me. Greater knowledge of the monster/NPC/setting details? Sure. Greater knowledge of where the story is heading? Nope.

Of course the DM has greater knowledge of where the story is heading, at least in the approach I take, because the DM likely has plot hooks that they want to introduce.

Assuming that the GM is constrained by the rules, yes - some seem to be saying that rules do not constrain a GM, however...

I'd say guide, not constrain. But the DM always can over-rule the rules.

Background, yes. History, yes - as far as is required for play. Story board or predetermined plot - no. To have such a thing is, at a minimum, to limit the influence of the players' decisions and thus to render their characters other than protagonists - which is what they are supposed to be.

Now, there might be exceptions to this with the agreement and connivance of the players - when running through a sequence of published scenarios, for example - but in general no future plot should be assumed or planned by the GM. The players should make clear their intentions, and the GM should plan around that.

Assumed? No; I agree with you. Planned? Why not? Plans are flexible and can be changed.

 

[Cadence]

Thanks to @Cyberen in #111 - "karmic currency" is giving me something to think about.

And thanks to @Ahnehnois (#113) and @Mercurius (#114) for doing a nice job of commenting on agency and world building & story knowledge respectively (and making it so I didn't have to figure out how I wanted to say it!).

In well designed rules there will be no clash because the places where each player (including the GM) has the power to dictate will be defined. This is one area where a lot of Indie games are really good, actually; their split of responsibility/power may be very non-traditional, but it is well defined. The rules say - as their primary function, in fact - who gets to decide what.

Is this a fair extrapolation?

When playing a game where RAW reserves ultimate authority to the DM as they see fit, the participants in a well run campaign that chooses to divide the power among the players and DM in a different way should explicitly agree on the division of power before the campaign begins [in order to avoid later difficulties].

 

[TwoSix]

It should be obvious to everyone here that no amount of discourse, no matter how civilized and informed, can make it "clear" for you.

I'm fairly sure that not being "clear" is a politer way of saying he thinks you're wrong.

Quite simply, not all of us accept that the trad way of roleplaying is the only way to play D&D, that trad style defines D&D, or that it is even the only textually supported way. You can feel free to disagree, of course, but we're pretty much in two different camps that are starting from two different base points.

 

[Cadence]

RE: DM/Player Power Split

So, regardless of what side of the aisle you're on in regards to the division of ultimate authority... how do you deal with situations like the one over at: http://www.enworld.org/forum/showth...orlds-Combat&p=6229433&viewfull=1#post6229433

The DM is sick of playing the game because of two broken spells... and the player doesn't want them nerfed because it would destroy all the hard system mastery work they put in to developing the character.

It seems somewhat sad, but does each group need to agree on how they will deal with mid-game-discovered-brokenness before they start to play?

 

[Aenghus]

One old school picture of D&D groups was an all-powerful DM running a game like his own personal fiefdom, fiercely guarding his authority, and expecting his players to be acolytes. A lot of players didn't know much about the game and trusted the referee to do everything for them.

In the old days there was little or no discussion of game style and individual preferences. Games tended to be much more anarchic as a consequence IMO (and because players were younger).

There is an awful lot more variety nowadays, methinks. Many players have decades of playing and DMing experience and some game groups consist entirely of such players. Such players are much less likely to tolerate being treated like mushrooms than in the (for some) bad old days.

Modifying character sheets of established PCs can be a complex proposition. The possibility exists that proposed modifications may lead to the player being unhappy with the resulting PC and/or retiring him and introducing a new pc, or leaving the game. While I've seen players being browbeaten into running PCs they aren't happy with, they don't do so for long and the experience can sour them on the group concerned or the game itself.

 

[ExploderWizard]

D&D doesn't include competing narratives. Nor are the mechanics of the game (or most all games actually) about resolving people's narrations into a "shared fiction". The DM is in no way a player in D&D. All the Big Model is is a highly prejudiced philosophy created to stamp out any ideas not agreeable to its own. It wasn't even given credence to until the last years of 3.x and then in the design of 4e by Mike Mearls who is one of the three founders of The Forge. I believe he has some good will to D&D given the failure of his last design, but D&DN is still rife with "narrative resolution mechanics". They can't or won't let themselves out of the horribly conceived check system originally put forth in the DSG. The idea that the OSR and old school game design are "essentially the same as the new school" is just more inability to think outside contemporary biases. In order to understand D&D and game design in general at any level we need to completely scrub our minds clean of narrative theory and the bigotry of narrative absolutists.

Very well said. I need to spread some XP around but this is oh so worthy.

This strikes me as underanalysed. Are you talking about world creation? Framing of scenes/encounters? Adjudication of action resolution? Does the GM have authority to rewrite PC backstories? To rewrite character sheets? To direct players how they are to spend PC build resources? If a player rolls a natural 20 on a to-hit roll against an ordinary orc, is a GM nevertheless entitled to stipulate that no hit occurs and no damage is dealt? (And if so, what was the point of having the player roll the die?)

PC backstories are inconsequential to the starting realities of a fledgling adventurer. The player can make up whatever amuses them in that respect. Resource expenditure is strictly player territory.
They may spend their starting money however they see fit. If a player rolls a natural 20 against an ordinary orc it will be a hit barring something extraordinary. Was that orc in fact wearing a cloak of displacement? If so and this was the first attack against the orc I would announce a miss. I would not announce a miss for no reason.

Also, how does the game better support imagination by making it "very, very difficult" to play an inspirational battle captain? In effect, you are reducing your rationing mechanisms to one dimension - random allocation of success - rather than the multiple dimensions that 4e uses to ensure that these sorts of abilities are widely available but nevertheless do not break the overall action economy of the game.

In my game if someone wants to be an inspirational battle captain then they play a character with a high CHA, and/or say or do something inspiring during a battle. Such acts will have a direct impact on the morale of allied npcs. Other PCs will get no tangible benefit from such an act because each player has free will and is not subject to the morale rules. This is easy to implement and does not break the overall action economy of the game.

I have zero interest in "GM as story teller".

Hey me either! We agree on something. As player, I'm there to play a game via exploring a world. I can read a book and get told a story.

That doesn't mean the GM simply plays "everyone else".

Well, thats part of it but not all.

As I play the game, the GM has a special role in relation to backstory and sceneframing. The GM also has a distinctive role in relation to action resolution, but it is very far from unconstrained.

Yes the GM does provide some backstory and color commentary on the world at large. Scene framing is for stories and has nothing whatsoever to do with D&D. Action resolution in conjuction with agreed upon rules of play are a large part of the job of the referee as well.

Why don't the players have comparable power? Why can't they exercise fiat to improve the game and the overall enjoyment of the game participants?

Because they are roleplaying adventurers exploring a fantasy world? Why can't YOU just wave your hand and improve things in your own life for your overall better enjoyment? Probably because the world is what it is and we just have live in it. Its no different for the roleplayed character. Why don't I use fiat to make traffic dissappear so I can have a faster commute home which would contribute to my overall enjoyment of the evening?

It all boils down to the objectives of play. D&D is a roleplaying game designed with two distinct roles defined. Player, and Dungeon master. The DM IS just another person at the table but he/she is NOT just another player. The two roles were different for a reason.

If your play objectives do not mesh with those that D&D was designed for, there will of course be problems. The system, indeed the whole structure of the game was never intended to support co-authored fiction creation as an objective of play. D&D will be subobtimal for doing that. Other systems support that playstyle better and were indeed designed for it, such as Fate or D&D 4E.

 

[Cyberen]

Gentlemen. Please.
Instead of uttering outré or pedantic statements such as "I tolerate GM Force in CoC but not in my D&D !" or "go and play 4e instead of D&D !" and indulge in barren edition-warring, would you consider addressing the (imho)underlying issue :
Can GM force be a modular part of D&D ?
I hope it is, but I am really unsure : in order to contain it, and to guarantee player agenda, 4e :
1) empowered every PC with fiat effects
2) removed FX requiring massive GM Force, such as possession, from the game (my experience with 4e being essentially theoretical, please correct me)
My opinion on this topic is 4e went a bit too far. When dimension door is available at 1st level (Eladrin's Fey Step) but Magic Jar is no longer on the table, the game stops supporting too many genres/tropes/playstyles to my taste.
I think item #1 is not such a big deal. Next power curve, with 1st level characters being little more than average Joes, should accomodate many playstyles.
I have trouble finding a solution that would put#2 on a switch (or a dial ?). Would that solve the issue of DM force ? Is it feasible ?