Dungeon Mastering as a Fine Art

[Rod Staffwand]

I don't know who suggested that, though. Can you quote whoever it was?

I've repeatedly and I think extremely clearly said that the solution is "explain how to DM in detail before you introduce the concept of fiat, and tell people not to use it unless they have to", which I think is precisely what you're saying.

Then we'll just have to agree to agree...wait...whaaaa?

Though I will say the word 'fiat' implies a certain arbitrariness (in the sense of being unreasonable or capricious) that I'm not entirely comfortable with. Rule 0 isn't advocating for dictatorial DM control but for practical common sense.

I thought there was a point in the thread that mandating tighter controls on DM 'powers' would somehow prevent bad DMing. It may have been the voices in my head again.

 

[Emerikol]

I drive a 75 Vette. It's objectively inferior to most modern cars. I like driving it anyway & I don't care if newer cars are objectively, measurably better. I have fun doing my thing.

"Your gas mileage is terribad, you got no passenger side mirror, no airbags, no trunk, no back seat, and this thing smells like an oil field on fire - how can you drive this? Spend a couple bucks and get something from this millenium!"

Eh - don't care. I love what I love. And I'm not offended if someone has a different feeling about it.

Yes but this does not apply to gaming. You might could argue that thac0 is objectively inferior to ascending ACs via some psychological analysis. You can't argue though playstyles. It's purely preference. Any successful game that captures a broad audience is going to have variants arise. That doesn't make the old original rules bad. So your car analogy doesn't fit the gaming discussion. Entertainment is that way. It's hard to argue about something so subjective as gaming preferences.

 

[Bawylie]

My car isn't "bad" either. Still, despite the fact that it's inferior to modern cars, I subjectively prefer to drive it.

And here's why the analogy works. Times have changed, tech and systems have changed. A lot of old stuff is practically obsolete by today's standards. But LIKING something isn't objective. So while, older editions and play styles aren't as objectively good, you can still like them and have plenty of fun.

You can like something AND acknowledge other stuff is better. Or, I can, anyway.

 

[Agamon]

You can like something AND acknowledge other stuff is better. Or, I can, anyway.

While I agree with this premise (and pretty much everything else you've posted in this thread, we're certainly of like mind)...

And here's why the analogy works. Times have changed, tech and systems have changed. A lot of old stuff is practically obsolete by today's standards. But LIKING something isn't objective. So while, older editions and play styles aren't as objectively good, you can still like them and have plenty of fun.

...I'm not sure what you mean by this. I'm not so sure games really become obsolete the same way technology does. Go and Chess are examples of very old games that are still very much played today.

And while I agree that anyone should be able to subjectively like what they want, if we're going to say something is objectively better than something else we need some sort of empirical data to back that up instead of just, "it's newer."

 

[Bawylie]

You're right. Not all games become obsolete if we're talking about what's played today. Just like obsolete cars are still driven today. It doesn't mean they're not cars anymore - but they're not made that way anymore. They're better - not merely because they're new.

Next's gameplay is faster, the numbers are tighter, the time-to-proficiency for new players is as close to zero as I've ever seen. Prep time is as low for me as 4E was (which is significantly lower than other editions - for me). Conversion is extremely easy. And very little of the game is fiddly or requires further clarification.

The game, IMO, is better than what came before. I have objective measurements that support my conclusion - but of course you may conclude something else. No worries.

 

[Neonchameleon]

That is why I deliberately tried to avoid the main debate. I was just calling out the snippet where you implied old school meant model-T and the new stuff was 2014 or whatever. My sole point was that the game is not necessarily improving when it gets a new style. Instead it is varying and for some people that is good because the variant is an improvement for them. The implication when you say model-T is that the old school approaches are objectively inferior in some way.

Perhaps you did this thoughtlessly or perhaps it reveals your mindset about your own preferences or both. Either way it is annoying to people who enjoy the old school game and feel they are being told they like out of date old technology. Kind of like telling some of us to go play on our atari 2600 and leave the big boys to the PS4 or XBox One.

Yes but this does not apply to gaming. You might could argue that thac0 is objectively inferior to ascending ACs via some psychological analysis. You can't argue though playstyles. It's purely preference. Any successful game that captures a broad audience is going to have variants arise. That doesn't make the old original rules bad. So your car analogy doesn't fit the gaming discussion. Entertainment is that way. It's hard to argue about something so subjective as gaming preferences.

It is old tech. Anything up to 40 years old. You can say you don't like it being called such. But that doesn't make what is being said incorrect. It's also classic - Sturgeon's Law applies, and classics become classics for a reason. Just because black and white films are old tech doesn't make Casablanca a bad film - but neither does Casablanca being an outstanding film and possibly one of the best example of the screenwriters' art there has ever been (or possibly just the rawness of it with things like unscripted tears in La Marseilleise) mean that we should remain using technology from the 1940s.

 

[Lanefan]

To me this is my biggest disagreement. Not just for D&D and RPGs, but any game or sport anywhere. I don't have a problem with house rules or homebrewing. I think hombrewing in fact is a temperature gauging the health of the hobby. But Rule Zero is bad game design in every respect I can think of. But I have come to respect your opinion over the years and if Rule 0 is that vital to you I'd like to know why.

It's vital because when all the other rules break down (as they inevitably will, once subjected to what the players dream up) it's all you have left.

It's vital because D&D, unlike pretty much any other game I can think of, is (or should be) malleable and shape-able to the moment; both by coded houserules and by on-the-fly rulings. Many times you've said, as above, that "any game or sport" works in manner x and thus D&D should as well; I counter by saying the malleability of the rules is one thing that makes D&D specifically *not* like other games...which renders your comparison moot.

It's vital because most of the other broad scope "rules" are (or should be) no more than guidelines, and rule 0 is your tool to make the game function within those guidelines.

It's vital because the DM is not just a CPU taking in data and churning out results; she's a living breathing part of a living breathing game

For me this is simply not possible. Games are codes. The DM has a code, a hard solve, behind the screen. The players are gaming in to achieve self determined objectives within it. (The game itself like Chess is too hard to solve for it to be a puzzle) The DM could try and play it like a player does, but for me it always comes down to a referee running Mastermind trying to play both sides of the screen. Are they purposefully supposed to forget the code? Are they supposed to pretend they don't know what's going on behind the screen? They simply don't have the opportunity to be both IMO.

D&D is not Mastermind, nor is it Chess; nor Monopoly, nor a whole bunch of other things.

Again, you're trying to shoehorn D&D into a perception you have of how games (should) work, except D&D just don't work the same as all those other games. WoW is a code, written by a bunch of programmers; ditto for Baldur's Gate. But tabletop D&D is not a code, 3e's best attempts notwithstanding, if only because the whole thing is (and must always be) far too open-ended for the "code" to ever be complete.

Lan-"if anyone ever deciphers the code, please let me know"-efan

 

[Lanefan]

It is old tech. Anything up to 40 years old. You can say you don't like it being called such. But that doesn't make what is being said incorrect. It's also classic - Sturgeon's Law applies, and classics become classics for a reason. Just because black and white films are old tech doesn't make Casablanca a bad film - but neither does Casablanca being an outstanding film and possibly one of the best example of the screenwriters' art there has ever been (or possibly just the rawness of it with things like unscripted tears in La Marseilleise) mean that we should remain using technology from the 1940s.

If the tech from the 1940's (or in this particular case, the 1970's) does the job better and-or lasts longer than the tech from today, why not keep using it, all the while incrementally improving on it, rather than tossing it out and redesigning it almost from scratch every decade or so?

Just because something is newer doesn't guarantee it will be better. Windows Vista, for example, is newer than Windows XP...

Lan-"barbarian on technology"-efan

 

[Agamon]

You're right. Not all games become obsolete if we're talking about what's played today. Just like obsolete cars are still driven today. It doesn't mean they're not cars anymore - but they're not made that way anymore. They're better - not merely because they're new.

Next's gameplay is faster, the numbers are tighter, the time-to-proficiency for new players is as close to zero as I've ever seen. Prep time is as low for me as 4E was (which is significantly lower than other editions - for me). Conversion is extremely easy. And very little of the game is fiddly or requires further clarification.

The game, IMO, is better than what came before. I have objective measurements that support my conclusion - but of course you may conclude something else. No worries.

No worries at all, in fact, I agree with your conclusions. I guess I'm just nitpicking at the use of objective, but I suppose that's not the main point anyway.

 

[pickin_grinnin]

D&D is not Mastermind, nor is it Chess; nor Monopoly, nor a whole bunch of other things.

Again, you're trying to shoehorn D&D into a perception you have of how games (should) work, except D&D just don't work the same as all those other games. WoW is a code, written by a bunch of programmers; ditto for Baldur's Gate. But tabletop D&D is not a code, 3e's best attempts notwithstanding, if only because the whole thing is (and must always be) far too open-ended for the "code" to ever be complete.

Yes. Exactly.

Tabletop RPGs and computer-based games are the same thing, despite the gaming industry's use of the acronym "rpg" in describing some of them.