D&D General DM Authority

[prabe]

As I just posted to Charlaquin, thanks for answering the question. I am trying to understand. And, full disclosure, I started reading this thread around page 40. So I may have missed some things. I also don't want to assume answers from you, so I would ask the same as I did Charlaquin, is playing D&D without a DM still playing D&D? Thanks again.

No worries on the delay, and apologies for my own.

Yes, playing D&D without a DM is playing D&D. I haven't ever done so, but it doesn't seem to me as though it would either feel like D&D to me, or do what I want D&D to do.

 

[prabe]

We still call our game D&D and we've altered about 80-90% of the rules over the years.

I get the feeling your game is about as different from 1E AD&D, as published, as my 5E games are. I genuinely have no problem with considering them both D&D (not that you probably care, much).

Also, I suspect that there's something about the nature of the changes to the rules that would matter, and I don't get the feeling you've altered them in a particularly un-D&D-ish direction.

 

[JiffyPopTart]

What an absurd argument. You can't share with yourself. If something is yours, it's ALL yours.

The solo DM/player creates a different circumstance where there really is no player as the game defines it. It's effectively just the DM running NPCs through a dungeon.

This is just you grudging and not budging over semantics.

If you played "solo" D&D where you controlled 4 characters progressing through a dungeon you would wear two hats. When its the fighters turn and you decide they want to use a healing potion and run to the edge of the lake, that is being the player (as far as the traditional description of players/GMs in D&D goes).

When its the orcs turn and you decide that they are going to double move towards the fighter rather than double move towards the wizard, that is being the GM (as far as the traditional description of players/GMs in D&D goes).

When the fighter wants to continue to flee from the orc, but doesn't want to leave his wizard friend behind so stays and puts up a last defence, even though you KNOW that the orc is afraid of wizards and would never attack him, then you are wearing the hat of an Impartial Neutral Arbiter (which does not exist in traditional D&D but does in a strange solo hybrid game).

You wear at least three different "hats" in a solo game, all of which have different goals, and its very fair to say you can be playing a collaborative game, despite the fact that you are doing so by yourself.

Its the same as if you were to play the boardgame Pandemic by yourself...it would still be considered a Co-op game.

 

[Maxperson]

This is just you grudging and not budging over semantics.

Eh, no. You don't get to play the incredibly absurd semantical game in declaring sharing with yourself, and then get on me when I scoff at it.

If you played "solo" D&D where you controlled 4 characters progressing through a dungeon you would wear two hats. When its the fighters turn and you decide they want to use a healing potion and run to the edge of the lake, that is being the player (as far as the traditional description of players/GMs in D&D goes)


When its the orcs turn and you decide that they are going to double move towards the fighter rather than double move towards the wizard, that is being the GM (as far as the traditional description of players/GMs in D&D goes).

No. It would be lame to try and make both decisions myself. Better to randomize the monster tactics to at least get some measure of unpredictability in there. Otherwise the boredom factor would just be magnified. The point of playing solo is for there not to be a DM. Just you and random dice to determine what and how for the "DM" side of things.

When the fighter wants to continue to flee from the orc, but doesn't want to leave his wizard friend behind so stays and puts up a last defence, even though you KNOW that the orc is afraid of wizards and would never attack him, then you are wearing the hat of an Impartial Neutral Arbiter (which does not exist in traditional D&D but does in a strange solo hybrid game).

You wear at least three different "hats" in a solo game, all of which have different goals, and its very fair to say you can be playing a collaborative game, despite the fact that you are doing so by yourself.

Its the same as if you were to play the boardgame Pandemic by yourself...it would still be considered a Co-op game.

More semantics.

 

[JiffyPopTart]

Eh, no. You don't get to play the incredibly absurd semantical game in declaring sharing with yourself, and then get on me when I scoff at it.

Sure. I'll agree with you, then. If we define the word "collaborative" to only mean "working with another physical person" then you are correct.

 

[Maxperson]

Sure. I'll agree with you, then. If we define the word "collaborative" to only mean "working with another physical person" then you are correct.

That's what collaborate means, yes.

 

[Scott Christian]

I appreciate the replies. And I really am trying to understand.

I realize there are many definitions as to what D&D is, and it varies by person. But in my opinion, it seems to get bifurcated over and over when everyone starts travelling down their theoretical D&D definition road. Yet, the definition of D&D is known by everyone here - a tabletop role playing game in which players create characters that go on imaginary adventures in a fantasy setting, with the DM serving as referee and storyteller.

I can't really let the DM part leave my definition. I have read everyone's comments, including the article on a DM-less table. I tried to understand, but can't see your definition. Sorry.