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

[Cadence]

A nod of agreement to [MENTION=717]JRRNeiklot[/MENTION] 's post #179.... especially the second paragraph.

Similar questions go to playing (e.g.determining tactics in combat, exactly what is said, or what they're doing at any particular moment and for how long) any NPC or monster, don't they? Doesn't the picture the DM has in their head of how the story should (or would, could, might be best to, or seem likely to) play out go in to determining those things?

 

[Balesir]

Ah, well, it was good while it lasted. Now that the lynch mob have turned up to punish those not following accepted dogma, this is likely my last post to this thread.

Sounds like you want a game with no dm at all, then.

Yep, that works just fine with the one system I have used for it. The GM functions are assigned to one person by tradition and habit, not necessity.

If the dm doesn't make decisions, what, exactly, is his job?

Of course the GM makes decisions - just as any player does. I just find it deeply unhelpful when the GM gets to make decisions about how effective the player-characters are; they still get to make decisions about what other creatures appear and what they do. Isn't that enough?

Also, suppose there's no charm spell involved. How is the dm supposed to role play a "trusted friend and ally?" I don't think I've ever seen a hard coded rule for that in ANY rpg.

All non-player creatures act as the GM has them act - when they are not under the direct influence of something a PC has done. If the PCs act to have an effect on them, however, the scope of that effect should, for my own preferences, be described explicitly and precisely by the game rules. That is, it should not, for my preferred play style, depend upon an arbitrary judgement by the GM. The examples I listed all do depend on such a judgement.

 

[Ahnehnois]

All non-player creatures act as the GM has them act - when they are not under the direct influence of something a PC has done. If the PCs act to have an effect on them, however, the scope of that effect should, for my own preferences, be described explicitly and precisely by the game rules. That is, it should not, for my preferred play style, depend upon an arbitrary judgement by the GM. The examples I listed all do depend on such a judgement.

Would you agree, then, that if a PC is charmed or otherwise enchanted by an NPC, that PC's behavior should likewise be explicitly dictated by the rules, and the player should not be able to control his own character?

 

[Cadence]

Ah, well, it was good while it lasted. Now that the lynch mob have turned up to punish those not following accepted dogma, this is likely my last post to this thread.

"punish", "lynch mob", and "dogma" seem pretty harsh for people just trying to get to the heart of your example and claims. Sorry if my post added to your feeling like bailing :-(

Of course the GM makes decisions - just as any player does. I just find it deeply unhelpful when the GM gets to make decisions about how effective the player-characters are; they still get to make decisions about what other creatures appear and what they do. Isn't that enough?

Fair enough. It never struck me that charm person was doing that... or that your house rule was the equivalent to the standard charm spell. I guess we all have things we don't like and house rule though.

Is the difference between this and the GM setting the DCs for challenges (such as deciding what the NPCs will save is) where the GM decision comes in to play? (Did I miss that in a previous post?)

Back to your post #168 on Illusions and monster knowledge. Have you done in illusions for your game, or do you have a house rule to remove that problem? Does the monster knowledge also come in to play on things like disguises as well (if the party has a great disguise, but the monster knows the thing they're disguised as shouldn't be there)?

All non-player creatures act as the GM has them act - when they are not under the direct influence of something a PC has done. If the PCs act to have an effect on them, however, the scope of that effect should, for my own preferences, be described explicitly and precisely by the game rules. That is, it should not, for my preferred play style, depend upon an arbitrary judgement by the GM. The examples I listed all do depend on such a judgement.

So how do you work (or house-rule) diplomacy or reaction checks where the descriptors are similar to the old charm person? (If that's not "direct influence" then why does the charm person need to be?)

 

[Balesir]

Would you agree, then, that if a PC is charmed or otherwise enchanted by an NPC, that PC's behavior should likewise be explicitly dictated by the rules, and the player should not be able to control his own character?

Yep.

 

[pemerton]

Sounds like you want a game with no dm at all, then. If the dm doesn't make decisions, what, exactly, is his job? To memorize page numbers?

I agree with [MENTION=27160]Balesir[/MENTION]'s reply to this.

And as I said in reply to someone else's similar comment quite a bit upthread, the notion of "making decisions" is underanalysed. Here are a range of decidions that have to be made in a typical RPG session:

* Decisions about backstory for PCs;

* Decisions about backstory for PCs' friends and family;

* Decisions about backstory for the rest of the gameworld;

* Decisions about what is happening here and now - who meets whom, and what mood they are in when they meet;

* Decisions about actions taken by PCs, and the outcomes of those actions;

* Decisions about actions taken by NPCs, and the outcomes of those actions.​

Balesir is talking about the interaction between the last two categories of decision. Even if, in certain circumstances at least, a player has more authority in respect of those decisions than the GM, it hardly follows that there is nothing else for the GM to be deciding. Apart from anything else, there might be another, uncharmed NPC present here and now.

It requires no more dm fiat than a dm ruling whether or not it's cloudy enough for call lightning to work, or if yelling loudly will waken a sleeping companion.

I'm 99% confident that these would also fall into Balesir's "dislke of fiat" basket. They certainly do for me.

When I GM (and when I play) I want the players' choices to determine whether or not their PCs succeed at dealing with the challenges that confront them. Every time I, as GM, have to make a decision about how effective the players' actions are, I am undermining the contribution made by their choices and making the outcome a matter of my choices.

So how do you work (or house-rule) diplomacy or reaction checks where the descriptors are similar to the old charm person? (If that's not "direct influence" then why does the charm person need to be?)

Balesir can answer this for his own case. In my case, via "intent and task": the players indicate what they are hoping to achieve via having their PCs engage with the NPC, then checks are made, and if the players succceed they achieve their intent.

Is the difference between this and the GM setting the DCs for challenges (such as deciding what the NPCs will save is) where the GM decision comes in to play?

The difference is between posing a challenge and dealing with it. The GM's adjudication of the charm spell doesn't pose a challenge that the playes respond to by deploying further resources. (This contrasts with, say, a skill challenge, which has exactly that character - the players don't realise their intent until the challenge is successfully completed, and in the meantime they are deploying further resources to deal with the unfolding challenges of the GM's ongoing narration of outcomes of individual checks.)

 

[Aenghus]

To create a flawed analogy, the failure mode of DM fiat is the "divine right of DM's" which leads to pesky treasonous players prattling on about life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, and the rule of law not of men.

DM fiat without moderation by setting, precedent, player expectations, "common sense" or ,yes, rules has produced the worst games I have ever seen (briefly). DM fiat is the primary hammer of railroading DMs, frustrated novelists, and referees who just don't want the players to mess with their nice clean gameworld. So it's unsurprising that the term carries negative emotional connotations for me.

I find unmoderated DM fiat only appropriate for surreal settings and/or horror games. Most game genres need to be understandable to the players so they can act within it in a reasonably reliable way. A world that only exists in the DM's head is IMO too inaccessible for most players. So in the interests of a playable game, DM fiat is moderated by consistency concerns, precedent established by previous rulings, player expectations and the rules of the game.

I think the vast majority of DM's will admit that a certain amount of DM fiat is needed to keep the game moving. That "certain amount" is a subjective quantity, that will vary from game to game, campaign to campaign, decision to decision due to many factors, including player preferences. I use DM fiat mostly for setting details and throwaway NPCs, and as sparingly as possible for anything seriously affecting player actions.

Also, making decisions is tiring. Making DM fiat the primary mechanic IMO makes too much work for the average DM, and makes lots of standard PC actions into exercises in negotiation, bogging the game down. And I think rules should be aimed at the average DM, who needs all the help he or she can get, and doesn't a bunch of extra work making unnecessary decisions.

 

[Olgar Shiverstone]

I think the OSR has less to do with rules, though, than it does with a feeling - which includes presentation and the basic assumptions of the game. One of the problems with 3e, in my opinion, is that there was no simple, basic game that could be played without the density of rules that edition (and now Pathfinder) became known for. Castles & Crusades was an attempt to create that, and in my mind combines the best of "old school flavor" and "new school design," although without the production values and support that jaded D&D players of the 21st century have become accustomed to (plus the name itself implies something more medieval than fantastical).

I mentioned at the beginning of this thread that I was working on my own OSR/OGL game that was a mix of old school design with new school mechanics.

I've now released it to EN World for playtest.

You'll have to let me know what you think in terms of hitting the mark, rules & concept wise.

 

[Sunseeker]

To create a flawed analogy, the failure mode of DM fiat is the "divine right of DM's" which leads to pesky treasonous players prattling on about life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, and the rule of law not of men.

DM fiat without moderation by setting, precedent, player expectations, "common sense" or ,yes, rules has produced the worst games I have ever seen (briefly). DM fiat is the primary hammer of railroading DMs, frustrated novelists, and referees who just don't want the players to mess with their nice clean gameworld. So it's unsurprising that the term carries negative emotional connotations for me.

This hits the nail on the head for me. I actually quit a game a few days ago after ONE HOUR of play because of this sort of DM behavior, with a heaping helping of other detrimental behaviors.

I find unmoderated DM fiat only appropriate for surreal settings and/or horror games. Most game genres need to be understandable to the players so they can act within it in a reasonably reliable way. A world that only exists in the DM's head is IMO too inaccessible for most players. So in the interests of a playable game, DM fiat is moderated by consistency concerns, precedent established by previous rulings, player expectations and the rules of the game.

This is precisely why I leave my gameworlds rather vague. Yes, cities and kingdoms exist, they have certain alignments, desires and motivations, but generally speaking these are fairly fluid and with a rare exception, adaptable to player input.

I write stories for a hobby, I do transcription for a living. There is a time and a place for the author to get exactly what they want, and that time and place by and large isn't a group-based game.

I think the vast majority of DM's will admit that a certain amount of DM fiat is needed to keep the game moving. That "certain amount" is a subjective quantity, that will vary from game to game, campaign to campaign, decision to decision due to many factors, including player preferences. I use DM fiat mostly for setting details and throwaway NPCs, and as sparingly as possible for anything seriously affecting player actions.

I tend to run a "Gandalf" in my games. They're a knowledgeable, sort of oddball who will lend players direction, wander off on their own when the party doesn't really need them, and basically be my "voice" when players do certain things, but otherwise they'll simply tag along and make themselves useful without stealing the party's thunder.

Also, making decisions is tiring. Making DM fiat the primary mechanic IMO makes too much work for the average DM, and makes lots of standard PC actions into exercises in negotiation, bogging the game down. And I think rules should be aimed at the average DM, who needs all the help he or she can get, and doesn't a bunch of extra work making unnecessary decisions.

Oh dear lord yes. The DM already has so much to do behind the screen, I've got absolutely no desire to make decisions or take actions on behalf of my player(without their consent of course).

 

[Ahnehnois]

I find unmoderated DM fiat only appropriate for surreal settings and/or horror games.

That strikes me as about as extreme of a straw man as it gets. Why would a DM ever be completely unmoderated by some considerations or other?

I would think, though, that horror and surrealism would involve stricter reading of rules systems, than, say adventure, naturalistic play, and thematic drama, all of which require a very active DM because the world implied by the D&D rules is nonsensical and counter to almost everything we would want to do.