D&D General How much control do DMs need?

[Manbearcat]

There seems to be new claim entering circulation that custom moves in PbtA amount to some sort of rule zero by stealth.

Is this a new claim that is trying to stick? AW Custom Moves aren't a principally & structurally constrained piece of transparently codified game tech? Therefore stealth Rule 0?

If whoever out there actually believes this could kindly raise your hand and point me to your take on this, I'd be curious to how you arrived at that!

So the PCs are the only people in the setting who can proactively do anything, and NPCs/the setting can only react to what the PCs (try to) do?

So much for the idea of a living world.

This is a misread of what you read based on an information deficit would be my guess. NPCs and the setting in these games have codified dramatic needs and have codified means to put them into effect. They're (the antagonists and obstacles) just not PC-agnostic. The point of their existence in the game is to create a vital play-space which brings about opposition to the players and the protagonists they're playing.

I know you like to spend a lot of time on your game with conflict-neutral, PC-agnostic content. These games aren't about that. If you feel like that (spending all of play on conflict-forward, PC-relevant conflict) makes them not "living world-ey," then that is an autobiographical testimony of one Lanefan of ENWorld. But its not a truism about these games. The percentage of gameplay that is devoted to collisions of wills (both embodied and disembodied) and related fallout in these games is extreme. IME, that makes these games as "living world-ey" as it can get.

This last part seems like DM decides when I would have thought this being a modern indie game - the dice would direct the DM rather than his opinion.

Given the past of these conversations in this place and moments like this, I'd reeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeally rather have this speculation not become an ENWorld ILLUMINATI CONFIRMED moment that is then cemented into circulation.

Did this get sufficiently answered so that its amply clear that DM decides is not how this works?

 

[overgeeked]

Really? You have the material that Dave Arneson originally sent to Gary?

I mean ... okay. So why don't you share it? For real! I mean, that is quite the claim. @Alzrius - I am summoning you as well given your interest in history. @Mistwell @overgeeked

We had a thread on that recently ....

D&D General - Arneson's original notes to Gygax?

Considering all the "archaeology" that's going on with early D&D, I'm curious if anyone's come across the original notes Dave Arneson sent to Gary Gygax. I wonder how playable the game presented in those notes would be.

www.enworld.org

So, please share! I mean, I just read history and talk about it, but I've never read the famous twenty pages of notes. I'll wait! With bells on!*

That would be amazing. People have been looking for that stuff for decades. Quite the find. Can't wait to see it.

 

[AnotherGuy]

Given the past of these conversations in this place and moments like this, I'd reeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeally rather have this speculation not become an ENWorld ILLUMINATI CONFIRMED moment that is then cemented into circulation.

Gosh I wish you let me know before Morrus approved it as a topic for the Enworld newsletter

Did this get sufficiently answered so that its amply clear that DM decides is not how this works?

I think it did. I've bookmarked the replies for me to read later when I have a little more time to digest the info. But from skimming it and to be completely honest it felt like the reason given was that it was seen as ok if the guidelines were followed (including following the fiction).

Now like I said I've bookmarked the replies to come back to it for a better understanding because with the skimmed understanding of the above I could then just insert the above advice into the DMG and do the same for when the DM decides.

Not to mean to say that D&D will then = DW or AW.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

Really? You have the material that Dave Arneson originally sent to Gary?

I mean ... okay. So why don't you share it? For real! I mean, that is quite the claim. @Alzrius - I am summoning you as well given your interest in history. @Mistwell @overgeeked

We had a thread on that recently ....

D&D General - Arneson's original notes to Gygax?

Considering all the "archaeology" that's going on with early D&D, I'm curious if anyone's come across the original notes Dave Arneson sent to Gary Gygax. I wonder how playable the game presented in those notes would be.

www.enworld.org

So, please share! I mean, I just read history and talk about it, but I've never read the famous twenty pages of notes. I'll wait! With bells on!*



Yeh... given the number of times I've had to say something about this, and given how easy it is to do, your continued choice to comment about FKR while displaying a level of ignorance about it continues to befuddle me. Again, there's a lot of resources- I recommend just running it for a while, and it will make a lot more sense.






Well, a lot of live history- the thing is, actual history is a lot more varied than a single person's experience.



No. But what I can do is continue to tell people to read actual histories about the game instead of relying on people to improperly explain it. Just this, right here, does a giant disservice to the diversity of play that existed in the 70s.



*Seriously! IIRC, people have speculated that the notes were deliberately destroyed during the lawsuit. But I would love, really really love to be totally wrong on this so I could geek out to it instead of having to backwards imagine based on the First Fantasy Campaign.

And yet you make no substantive reply...

And its not as if these early materials are not available, albeit in fragmentary form, online. There's Dalluhn, Mornard, the CONTAX group stuff, and some early reproduced versions of what is essentially the finished text that still survive. MANY things were written down! Much of this by DAVE, and then again codified by Gary, who both clearly understood that the only way to construct a game was to actually write rules (I mean, maybe in the context of a heavily shared understanding of RPGs as a general thing you can now get away with Messerspiel, but you could not have done that in 1973!). If you have specific issues, by all means, produce facts and back up your assertions, its all just hot air at this point. You can go look up these references and easily find the material online too! Some of it has been out there for 10 years (and it would be nice if we could really get complete scans of the entire text of some of these things, but whatever).

 

[Alzrius]

Really? You have the material that Dave Arneson originally sent to Gary?

I mean ... okay. So why don't you share it? For real! I mean, that is quite the claim. @Alzrius - I am summoning you as well given your interest in history. @Mistwell @overgeeked

We had a thread on that recently ....

D&D General - Arneson's original notes to Gygax?

Considering all the "archaeology" that's going on with early D&D, I'm curious if anyone's come across the original notes Dave Arneson sent to Gary Gygax. I wonder how playable the game presented in those notes would be.

www.enworld.org

So, please share! I mean, I just read history and talk about it, but I've never read the famous twenty pages of notes. I'll wait! With bells on!*

Whoa! Someone actually has the original notes that Dave Arneson sent to Gary Gygax?!

Please please please post it here! If not here, then please send it via a PM or email! I've recently been reviewing some of Rob Kuntz's old notes in his El Raja Key Archive, but Dave's notes would be on a whole other level!

 

[Manbearcat]

Gosh I wish you let me know before Morrus approved it as a topic for the Enworld newsletter

I think it did. I've bookmarked the replies for me to read later when I have a little more time to digest the info. But from skimming it and to be completely honest it felt like the reason given was that it was seen as ok if the guidelines were followed (including following the fiction).

Now like I said I've bookmarked the replies to come back to it for a better understanding because with the skimmed understanding of the above I could then just insert the above advice into the DMG and do the same for when the DM decides.

Not to mean to say that D&D will then = DW or AW.

Cool, cool.

Let me know if you have any questions when you've read the response in full and feel you've digested it (or not)

Here is one thing to incorporate into your digestion:

* Some rulesets are integrated networks whereby the correct utilization of each piece of rules tech is contingent upon the correct utilization of the other piece of rules tech and then correctly integrated together as a working whole.

So you can't just bolt one thing from these integrated networks into another system that isn't possessed of the same properties and have that yield the same process of play or experience of play (whether the participant is a player or GM).

 

[Alzrius]

You can go look up these references and easily find the material online too! Some of it has been out there for 10 years (and it would be nice if we could really get complete scans of the entire text of some of these things, but whatever).

Maybe I've been looking in the wrong places, but I've never found a PDF of Dave's original notes. Please share?

 

[Snarf Zagyg]

And yet you make no substantive reply...

And its not as if these early materials are not available, albeit in fragmentary form, online. There's Dalluhn, Mornard, the CONTAX group stuff, and some early reproduced versions of what is essentially the finished text that still survive. MANY things were written down! Much of this by DAVE, and then again codified by Gary, who both clearly understood that the only way to construct a game was to actually write rules (I mean, maybe in the context of a heavily shared understanding of RPGs as a general thing you can now get away with Messerspiel, but you could not have done that in 1973!). If you have specific issues, by all means, produce facts and back up your assertions, its all just hot air at this point. You can go look up these references and easily find the material online too! Some of it has been out there for 10 years (and it would be nice if we could really get complete scans of the entire text of some of these things, but whatever).

So ....

You do or do not have it? You just made a very specific claim. You understand that there are a lot of history buffs here- you know, people who read a lot. People who discuss this a lot. People who are active in the broader circles, and some of us were even alive during that time as well.

Do you have the pdf or not? You said you had it. We all have been looking for it. So .... POST IT.

Seriously- do you realize that your claim is .... somewhat ... extraordinary? I mean, if I said, "I have a copy of the Mayan Codices, but ... you just have to look it up yourself, NBD," that would be a weird thing to say, right?

If you really do have this, you really should offer it up!

 

[Aldarc]

If it's not Rule 0 that allows the ability to kitbash, then what rule is it?

The power and authority to kitbash games does not comes from a rule or a system. It comes from the people of the hobby. I guarantee you that if you removed any mention of Rule 0 or any statement that told people that they could kitbash the game that people would still kitbash the game. It's what people do.

Maybe that is the real harm of Rule 0. It deceives people into thinking that this "rule" is what gives them the ability to kitbash the game when it actually comes from the people in the hobby.

I ask because somehow somewhere there's a stated or unstated (depending on case) difference between RPGs and nearly all other games: RPG rules are open to kitbashing.

Except this is not true. Kit-bashing, house rules, and the like happens in practically all games.

I will hammer this point home until you finally remember, but Hasbro was actually surprised to learn that many people had their own house rules for Monopoly that differed from the official rules. Guess what? There is no rule in Monopoly that lets them kitbash the game or make house rules. The same is also true for Uno. When I play Uno with other people, I always ask what their rules are because it's often that the rules that people use are not the same as the official rules.

How could these people do it? Because it's what people do when they play games. People are constantly modifying and house-ruling games without any Rule 0 that tells them that they can. It's the nature of people playing games.

The expression of that difference is IMO a part of Rule 0 even if it isn't written out.

There is no difference.

 

[soviet]

More or less, yes, unless there's someone who has final-word authority.

Compromise doesn't happen easily or quickly with stubborn people.

OK, well I can tell you that my actual experience is different, and that when I run these games I've never had a voting session and I've never seen any sort of deadlock.

To be fair in my adult life I don't think I've seen many proper rules arguments at all, at least not that have taken more than two minutes to resolve but when I have seen them it's been in D&D games where rule zero is in effect.