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

[ExploderWizard]

Unlimited DM power, even to the extent of fudging monster hit points so as to keep them alive, or fiating player attacks so as to stop them killing "special" NPCs, is a product of AD&D 2nd ed rules texts (and similar era rules text in White Wolf books - the so-called "golden rule").

Those are not rules per se, more like terrible advice than anything else. I believe suggestions such as those did the most to put forth the idea that all DMs engaged in illusionism and regularly cheated to ensure desired outcomes.

I'm not very good at GMing Gyagaxian D&D, and not all that keen on playing it either. But I would prefer it to 2nd ed style based on unlimited GM power in the interests of "the story".

I do really enjoy Gygaxian D&D but the 2E style you are referring to disinterests me as well. Why play at all if your decisions and actions are meaningless?

I prefer a game in which the players can make meaningful choices as to how their PCs engage the gameworld without relying upon the GM as the sole mediator of whether or not those choices have an effect - and if so, what effect - on the ingame fictional situation. I have two main reasons for this preference: (i) I want the players to play a major role in shaping the outcome of ingame events; (ii) I do not want the conflict of interset, as GM, of having to both establish the adversity that confronts the PCs, and deciding whether or not they are able to overcome it. For me, systems which do not satisfy constraint (ii) - ie systems in which the GM decides to "allow" things or not based on whether or not they are "good for the story" - are insipid and uninspiring. Whether or not they involve roleplaying, they all fall under the broad notion of the GM deciding what story will be told.

Here we disagree a bit. (surprise!! ). In the D&D that I run, the players ultimately decide what adversity they wish to overcome AND their odds of overcoming it based on their own approach. While it is true that I populate the game world with 'things' other than the PCs, I do not get to pre-decide the what and when of some of those things resulting in adversity for the players. There is no conflict of interest because I don't know what adversity the players will drum up for themselves or what plans they might come up with to handle it. That is the fun of the game for me as a DM, being just as curious about what might happen as the players. I do a good deal of prep to ensure that multiple avenues of adventure are open for the players to explore. It is my job to provide the players with information and opportunity to seek adventure. The players choose their own destiny. Does this mean that everything is static and no events of any importance happen? Not at all. The world is always in motion and individuals and groups take steps to advance their agendas. The players may cross paths with many of them in their adventures thus getting entangled with ongoing plots hatched by these entities. This often leads to events and other opportunities that wouldn't have existed without player involvement. Thus the players can have a major impact on the world via their decisions and actions, none of which require complex resolution mechanics to bring about.

I do not play to tell a story, and therefore don't really care if one gets told or not.

 

[Yora]

Just wondering. Did anyone bring up the Quick Primer for Old School Gaming by Matthew Finch yet?

I think particularly for people unacustomed to rules-light games it does a fairly decent job in summarizing and explaining the difference in actual gameplay that result from the different rules of the old TSR games and retro-clones and the modern d20 games.

 

[Ahnehnois]

Why play at all if your decisions and actions are meaningless?

What if, instead, some of your decisions and actions are meaningless, and some aren't, but you don't know which ones or why? And as a player you can't know the result of an action in advance, but can make some educated guesses?

Then, as a player, you're merely making decisions on the same level that the character is.

 

[Mercurius]

I remain somewhat flabbergasted by the notion that any degree of DM fiat or employment of Rule Zero is "cheating" and tantamount to railroading a game.

This is where I see the logic fail. Sort of like saying all cloudy days are alike, whether we're talking a stray cirrus wisp or gray overcast, and thus "the sunny day is ruined" (not to mention that you need gray days every so often to remember what a sunny day is like, but that's only tangentially related in that the clouds end up augmenting the clear sky).

I use fiat sparingly, and only when (I feel) it augments the play experience of everyone concerned. I don't "cheat." Actually, if we want to RAW, Rule Zero is not cheating because its implied in ALL editions of D&D. Actually, it isn't implied - its outright stated.

In a way I see fiat/Rule Zero as being akin to the Wish spell. It isn't about using it in an overpowering sense that completely upsets the game, but as a way of accomplishing something that otherwise couldn't be accomplished.

I'd also question the idea that a DM can "cheat." As Rule Zero is part of the RAW, this doesn't make sense. A DM can, however, make poor decisions that de-stabilize game play, betray player trust, or otherwise mar the play experience. It is less a matter of right or wrong, or black or white, and more a matter of what makes sense contextually, and what the DM ultimately serves. I see the DM as ultimately serving to facilitate enjoyment, so Rule Zero is an escape clause when a certain kind of intervention would increase enjoyment.

There are different ways to play D&D, but using that statement to defend one's preferred style while calling Rule Zero "cheating" seems contradictory. It seems that those who see Rule Zero (or fiat, if there's a difference) as cheating can only say so if they house rule it out of the RAW, so then it is only cheating in their house rule version of D&D. Hey, that's fine, but let's call a spade a spade!

 

[Olgar Shiverstone]

Ah, Rule Zero. It's critical to the game, since the game can't cover everything and the GM must be able to improvise and adjust on the fly, and also overrule the rules in instances where rule-based outcome simply wouldn't fit into the game being played.

But Rule Zero should also be considered in light of Rule One, which is that the RPG is a social compact between GM and players. The players give the GM tremendous power over how the game is played; in my opinion the GM's part of that contract is to ensure that GM rulings are transparent and predictable to the greatest extent possible. The GM has to retain the players' trust. When that compact fails, Rule Zero starts to look like GM fiat and the RPG a dictatorship, which I submit is never what is intended.

 

[Ahnehnois]

But Rule Zero should also be considered in light of Rule One, which is that the RPG is a social compact between GM and players. The players give the GM tremendous power over how the game is played; in my opinion the GM's part of that contract is to ensure that GM rulings are transparent and predictable to the greatest extent possible. The GM has to retain the players' trust. When that compact fails, Rule Zero starts to look like GM fiat and the RPG a dictatorship, which I submit is never what is intended.

I don't know that transparent and predictable are necessarily the terms. The conceit here is that you give the DM dominion over your shared fantasy, with the expectation that the resulting game will be enjoyable for all. There are a lot of ways of achieving that.

I think the DM's job is to put the players in the characters' shoes. If the characters feel strong, the players should be looking at their character sheets thinking how huge those numbers are. If the characters feel fear, the players should be afraid that the game will go badly for them. If the characters face a tough choice where they can't know the outcome, so should the players. I think this is best accomplished by a very careful and thoughtful DM who runs a game that the players don't understand until it's over, because just like any other form of fiction, if it becomes predictable, there's no reason to play it out.

 

[Minigiant]

It all comes down to playstyle to me.

For every player who feels free i to open space of rulings, nonmechanical imagination, and less rules... there's another player paralyzed by the lack of hard structure and another who is it the middle who like the freedom but needs to ask two dozen questions before doing anything.

For every DM freeed by openness and lack of rulings there is another crippled by the workload.

Then there's the rule-genre thing.

 

[Aenghus]

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?

IMO dependence on fiat is a high effort style, like tightrope walking without a safety net. Maintaining consistency requires constant effort, as does respecting precedent.

Being even a little bit inconsistent means logical flaws appear, and repeated inconsistency means the flaws build up over time. Not following reasonable precedents means players have difficulty figuring out the game, which makes many players disengage emotionally or play 20 questions before trying anything important.

Personally I prefer high values for consistency, precedent and information provision to players. YMMV.

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.

The surreal settings I intend to refer to generally place much less value on consistency and precedent, fluid dreamlike settings with less cause and effect and/or unreliable physical laws. Horror settings restrict player information or outright lie to them, make pc actions less reliable, and railroad and deprotagonise players in order to produce a horrifying experience for the players. I hate horror, so YMMV.

D&D settings are typically pseudo-medieval pastiches, that work like the real world apart from the fantastic elements, which are less prevalent at low levels in most settings. If anything, D&D settings work too much like the real world socially, but that's a compromise for accessibility to players and to make the worlds like the fairy tales players remember from childhood.

A strange world with different but reliable physical laws, so cause and effect applies, does require lots more explanation and adherence to rules. I find mid to high level D&D often falls in this category.

 

[pemerton]

Ah, Rule Zero. It's critical to the game, since the game can't cover everything

I think this necessity can be exaggerated. A good general resolution system can cover everything: even if it's as simple as "Roll a d6, and if it comes up 6 the player gets to narrate his/her desired outcome, and otherwise the GM gets to narrate the PC's failure to achieve his/her intent".

It's true that these sorts of general resolution systems do not simulate or represent any in-fiction causal process, but such simulation is not a necessary condition of being an effective resolution system.

What if, instead, some of your decisions and actions are meaningless, and some aren't

<snip>

Then, as a player, you're merely making decisions on the same level that the character is.

That is certainly one way to play an RPG. It just happens not to be a way that I prefer to play, either as GM or player.

I remain somewhat flabbergasted by the notion that any degree of DM fiat or employment of Rule Zero is "cheating" and tantamount to railroading a game.

This is where I see the logic fail. Sort of like saying all cloudy days are alike, whether we're talking a stray cirrus wisp or gray overcast, and thus "the sunny day is ruined"

As [MENTION=205]TwoSix[/MENTION] pointed out upthread, there is no "logic fail". There is a statement of preference (somewhat generalised to an identifiable playstyle).

Although by talking about "any degree of DM fiat" you are leaving important distinctions unanalysed - such as the distinctions between establishing backstory, framing scenes, and determining outcomes of declared actions.

I'd also question the idea that a DM can "cheat." As Rule Zero is part of the RAW, this doesn't make sense.

<snip>

There are different ways to play D&D, but using that statement to defend one's preferred style while calling Rule Zero "cheating" seems contradictory. It seems that those who see Rule Zero (or fiat, if there's a difference) as cheating can only say so if they house rule it out of the RAW, so then it is only cheating in their house rule version of D&D. Hey, that's fine, but let's call a spade a spade!

I believe that I was the poster who introduced the terminology of "cheating" upthread. And I stated that, playing Gygaxian D&D, changing the dungeon maps or contents without some ingame explanation being available would be cheating (with the ingame explanation, it might be good GMing or highly adversarial GMing, depending on further context).

If you are playing a version of D&D in which that sort of GM transformation of backstory is not cheating, fine - from that we can infer that you're not playing Gygaxian D&D.

Judging from their posts on this thread plus other parts of their posting history that I'm familiar with, I think that the two posters on this thread who play Gygaxian D&D are [MENTION=66434]ExploderWizard[/MENTION] and [MENTION=6688858]Libramarian[/MENTION]. Certainy not me. And not [MENTION=59082]Mercurius[/MENTION] either, at least judging from posts in this and other threads.

 

[Mercurius]

Ah, Rule Zero....Rule One

I agree on your distinctions, Olgar.

As @TwoSix pointed out upthread, there is no "logic fail". There is a statement of preference (somewhat generalised to an identifiable playstyle).

But what about the analogy of clouds? I'm not saying its a "logic fail" to not like fiat or rule zero at all in your campaign; I'm saying its a logic fail to make no distinction between mild and judicious use of it, and excessive power-mongering. I've found that there is a huge difference.

Although by talking about "any degree of DM fiat" you are leaving important distinctions unanalysed - such as the distinctions between establishing backstory, framing scenes, and determining outcomes of declared actions.

Fair enough. However, rule zero could be applied to any context, but it is less likely the more it impacts player autonomy.

I believe that I was the poster who introduced the terminology of "cheating" upthread. And I stated that, playing Gygaxian D&D, changing the dungeon maps or contents without some ingame explanation being available would be cheating (with the ingame explanation, it might be good GMing or highly adversarial GMing, depending on further context).

I don't think the DM has to explain that unless the players demand it (if they notice it at all). But I don't see it as problematic unless the players notice and are bothered by it.

But I agree with you that a DM should offer an explanation for changing something...if the players notice. If they don't, well, what's the harm? Assuming the DM is doing it for the right reasons, that is! (Fun for all).

If you are playing a version of D&D in which that sort of GM transformation of backstory is not cheating, fine - from that we can infer that you're not playing Gygaxian D&D.

By "Gygaxian D&D" you mean D&D as Gary Gygax ran it, probably not. But if you mean a specific edition of D&D, as we discussed up thread, all versions of D&D (afaik) had some kind of rule zero.

Judging from their posts on this thread plus other parts of their posting history that I'm familiar with, I think that the two posters on this thread who play Gygaxian D&D are @ExploderWizard and @Libramarian . Certainy not me. And not @Mercurius either, at least judging from posts in this and other threads.

From the way you describe it, I would agree. But "Gygaxian D&D" is your term. If you mean "old school D&D" then it might not be so clear to me.

I don't really identify with any label of what kind of D&D I play. I just play D&D!