3e, DMs, and Inferred Player Power

[Sundragon2012]

The flaw here is that I have yet to see players' contribute equally to a game. They show up maybe one day a week and sometimes you're lucly if they have updated their character or had taken notes from the previous session.

There can be no equality at the table as long as the DM spends so much more time to provide that fun experience than the players'.

Now, I love to DM, and that is a part of why I do it, but if the "rules" strip me of any ability to make a decision, or shoehorn my games into a certain style, then why play? People have said for the last few years that everyone wants to play 3e and no one wants to DM it. If the game bleeds DMs, then it will not survive. There is only so far that the rules can "eliminate" the DM before the game devolves into a minis game where people play set "scenarios" from a book.

Giving players options is fine and dandy, but you cannot ask someone to put in the majority of work and then tell them that they are equal to everyone else.

You are of course correct.

The very term equality is ludicrious in regards to this game.

If I spent 12hrs in a given week tweaking my setting and impriving it and coming up with adventures and hooks for my campaign (I use a lap top and work overnight shift) I'll be damned if someone is going to overrule me by referring to the Sacred Core Books when the changed I make are for the integrity of my game. How much time does the average player have to put in between sessions to really enjoy his character? Besides a little character optimization if necessary, no time at all.

There will be equality when the players put as much time and care into putting a world together, making it as consistant as possible and do so not because it benefits their characters but for love of the game. Only player who have DMed realize how involved this side of the hobby is.

There is no equality in 95% of real world gaming groups. In some tiny insignifigant percent of groups there may be shared DM duties but even then then they are rotating DM, they are rotating who is in control. Never once have I seen players in charge of anything other than their PCs and whatever power their characters have in the setting. Giving players the power to veto the DM or override his decisions is a recipe for chaos in any group not because of an adversarial relationship between player and DM but because the players and DMs have different roles within the game.


Chris

 

[Sundragon2012]

Also, as a note...

If a player doesn't like my tough but very fair and consistant style, they can always leave the table. I guarantee that finding a replacement player will be far easier for me than it will be for them to find a good DM. I have helped mediocre players become good to excellent players. However, DMs rarely allow themselves to be coached by a new player at their table. With DMs you are often stuck with what you've got.

DMs change and grow but not because of players pushing them, they grow because they mature. The DM you have right now is often the DM you will have for a good long while should you choose to sit at his table.

Players need to keep that in mind.


Chris

 

[Henry]

I not even going to finish the first post.
CORE OR THE DOOR!
Why? In other editions with so many splat books I start the rule that I had have my own purchased (no photocopies or loans) copy of book. And the player who wanted something out the splat book had to gift me a copy. Because I got tired of splatbooks having badly written rules which turn my game sideways.
If I can say no then and can now say NO! today. Grow a backbone and learn the power word No. Also learn to give up the dm chair and just be a player.

Jasper, while I still get a kick out of talking this way now and again , to me it's not going to net a lot of players, and it's going to net even fewer as time goes on. You have to work with your players to be sure they're happy with their characters that they play, or they're not going to be playing for long. Gone are the days when the game was so new and invigorating that character death meant you jumped back in and played again. The predominant form of play for the pool of potential RPG players out there is to know and master the existing rules, and create a character that is competent in those rules. Rules which cannot be mastered (i.e. those in the DM's head) are not desireable in this light. Not all potential players have these values, but I'm willing to bet that the majority do.

I also believe that every player should try DM'ing at least once (something you touched on). There's NOTHING that builds respect for the role of DM quite like walking in those shoes for a while. If the player likes it, then GREAT, ANOTHER DM! If not, then they at least have a goodunderstanding of what "cooperation" does bring.

Firelance, you say you don't see a rules system that will ever remove GM arbitration? I don't either, but I see that 3E and 3.5 REALLY tries to do so. There are rules for everything from the effects of a windstorm to how many halflings will fit in a behir's belly (8, to be precise). And future editions will probably try to remove even more power of adjudication, and as a DM this concerns me. I can say I'm the final arbiter of rules disputes, but in the end, if the rules don't support me in this, then in the end all a DM is, is a human computer. The 3.5 still say the DM is final authority, but only in the most roundabout fashion. I wonder if the 4th edition rules won't imply it at all.

Ultimately, where is the "equality" when it comes to the point where DM's aren't given rules authority to deny any supplement, and basically throw out monsters like figures in a mechanical clock and watch the gears run? Players having options I can sympathize with, but the power creep that inevitably happens from more and more options I can't sympathize with, and if there's no fun in DM'ing, then there's no point to DM. As BelenUmeria said, a game that bleeds GM's is just as functionless as a game that bleeds players.

I'm not having problems now, but as years go on and player rosters change, I have a feeling that I will.

 

[Hussar]

I refer to Hussar's excellent replies in post #73 and #74. Quite frankly, I doubt that any set of rules can ever be comprehensive enough that the DM never has to make any kind of judgement. As the ENWorld Rules Forum shows, the same set of rules can be interpreted very differently by different people.

Woot, my first ever props on EnWorld.

Again, I think it's a fundamental difference of opinion over what the role of a DM is. I gave up the idea of "DM as storyteller" a long time ago when I realized that the stories in my head never lived up to what happened at the table. I stepped back and let the players tell the story. I set the stage, create the starting point, but, after that, it's up to the players to develop things.

Then again, I have very, very little interest in creating entire campaign world's anymore. Again, I find that the fantastic ideas in my head, well, to put it bluntly, suck. While the concepts may seem brilliant to me, when it comes time to game, I find that it just isn't as great as I hoped.

Add to that a VERY long string of piss poor DM's that I've had over the years, I would FAR prefer that the DM's STOP MESSING WITH THE RULES. Now this is entirely my personal experience, but, I find that a rather large percentage of house rules stem not from an actual need for change, but because the DM is too lazy or stupid to actually read the book and learn the rules. Again, this is only my experience, but, time after time, I've seen DM's house rule this or that only to open the book, look for the rule and find that the bloody rule makes far more sense than the DM. And this was hardly limited to 3e. Time after time, my 2e and 1e experiences were identical. Sorry, but screwing over the character the DM knew (because I had told him at the outset) was going to start creating new spells, not because the spells I was creating were bad or overpowered but because he thought that it should be more difficult to create new spells is stupid. At the very least, that little gem of a rule should have been mentioned BEFORE I made the character.

I started DMing, not really because I wanted to overly much, but because I got sick and tired of being screwed over by powerhungry DM's who figured that they could use their every whim to punish their players for having the temerity for trying something new. I've been fortunate to have had a couple of good DM's that I could learn from, but, those experiences have forever soured me on the idea of constantly reworking the rules.

I have house rules in my game. That's true. I had to come up with naval combat rules because the naval combat rules out there blow chunks. They simply didn't work for me. So, I took the d20 modern vehicle rules, tweaked and changed and came up with a decent set of naval combat rules. But, the only reason I did that was because I had actually tried to make the other rules work first and found that they didn't. I would much rather work with existing rules that everyone has access to than try to come up with rules on my own.

Like I said, DM as referee, not as storyteller. When you referee, you don't need to change the rules very much, since the "setting" and the "story" don't matter to you. The only thing that matters during game play is the game. Setting and story is what I do outside of gameplay, behind the curtain so to speak.

The recent discussion in the Leiber and Howard thread shows the fundamental difference of opinion quite nicely.

 

[DragonLancer]

I also believe that every player should try DM'ing at least once (something you touched on). There's NOTHING that builds respect for the role of DM quite like walking in those shoes for a while.

While it might build some respect for the responsibilities and amount of time put in by the DM, I believe that players should really remain players for as long as possible. Once a player has the opportunity to be a DM it becomes almost detrimental to their gaming IMO.

As a player, especially newer players who have only been playing for a short time, the game can be imaginative and wonderous, but once they get a glimpse into the inner workings of the game and have the chance to look through the Monster Manual that magic goes out the window. No longer are trolls or ghosts terrifying adversaries, they are a set of stats easily understandable and that player then knows how they work.

In my experience, and assuming they don't have to start their own group, players should remain players for at least a couple of years before even considering being a DM/GM for the system in which they play.

 

[Belen]

Like I said, DM as referee, not as storyteller. When you referee, you don't need to change the rules very much, since the "setting" and the "story" don't matter to you. The only thing that matters during game play is the game. Setting and story is what I do outside of gameplay, behind the curtain so to speak.

Ok, now that I have gotten through your negative history with some DMs, we can get to the core of your argument, which makes little sense. In one sentence, you let the players tell the story, while in another, you work on the setting and story behind the curtain. The statements seem to contradict one another.

Setting and story is the entire purpose for having the role of DM. There can be no game without those aspects. The DM provides the direction for the game. Even if you provide a bare minimum of direction, you are still creating NPCs and developing encounters. Even the bare esssentials makes a DM more than a referee.

Referee: n 1: (sports) the chief official (as in boxing or American football) who is expected to ensure fair play [syn: ref] 2: someone who reads manuscripts and judges their suitability for publication [syn: reviewer, reader] 3: an attorney appointed by a court to investigate and report on a case v 1: be a referee or umpire in a sports competition [syn: umpire] 2: evaluate professionally a colleague's work [syn: peer review]

Please explain how you are a referee?

You cannot separate the behind-the-scenes work with the in game combat. A referee would only manage combat. A DM directs the combat, places the monsters, provides a reason for the monsters to be there, acts as the barmaid in the tavern who needs help against a gang of local thugs etc.

The DM directs the cooperative story and provides every element of that story except the main cast. The players are characters in the environment that the DM creates and breathes life into. If players want a referee, then they should play Living Greyhawk and play random standardized adventures where the entire purpose of the DM is to read box text and run pre-statted and placed combats.

That works fine in an environment where you get to DM and play equally, but that has no bearing on how most D&D games are run.

 

[Jackelope King]

The flaw here is that I have yet to see players' contribute equally to a game. They show up maybe one day a week and sometimes you're lucly if they have updated their character or had taken notes from the previous session.

I've known players like this. I've also known players in the first 3E campaign I ever read who actually pulled out my handouts while hanging playing Madden and would spend quite awhile pouring over them, trying to figure out how everything fit together. One of my players once called me on my cell phone while I was driving back from my aunt's house and he tells me that he and another player had been looking it over and they thought that another player was someone mentioned in a prophecy, and they didn't think she deserved it. But you know what? They liked the game enough to devote time to it away from the table, telling me that I was doing my job as a DM right. They might not be the norm, but players tend to reciprocate when they see the DM working for the game.

There can be no equality at the table as long as the DM spends so much more time to provide that fun experience than the players'.

Sure there can. The DM can be something other than a bubbling pot of ego and try to make things fun for the group as opposed to fun exclusively for him/herself.

Now, I love to DM, and that is a part of why I do it, but if the "rules" strip me of any ability to make a decision, or shoehorn my games into a certain style, then why play?

3E rules don't take any of that away, they just don't make it necessary. I can play a game where my only arbitration is deciding on how difficult skill checks should be, and I've got a handy difficulty chart for a bunch of skills lying right next to my campaign notes. I don't have to reinvent the wheel every time a player wants to try to climb a tree.

People have said for the last few years that everyone wants to play 3e and no one wants to DM it. If the game bleeds DMs, then it will not survive. There is only so far that the rules can "eliminate" the DM before the game devolves into a minis game where people play set "scenarios" from a book.

And yet in my experience the only ones I've met who complain about 3E taking power from DMs are the tyrant DMs in my area, the ones who loved nothing better than to drop pianos on unruly PCs for no good reason and who wore hats which said "DM = GOD". Now the rules insulate players from bad DMing like this, and the only people who I've heard whine about this are the ones who only like the DM's chair because it gives them the opportunity to stroke their ego by "screwing with players" (to quote one such DM I know). I will not assume that everyone who feels that less power to the DM is a bad thing is like this, but it is tempting at times.

Giving players options is fine and dandy, but you cannot ask someone to put in the majority of work and then tell them that they are equal to everyone else.

But when you get down to it, they are all equal. In spite of all the work the DM does, he is no more important than the players there, since if the player leave, all the DM can do is toss some dice at the cat. Believe it or not, players matter, and if you treat them like they're unimportant, then you'll have a hard time running a good game.

 

[Belen]

Sure there can. The DM can be something other than a bubbling pot of ego and try to make things fun for the group as opposed to fun exclusively for him/herself.

Ah...so if you have nothing to say, then insult. That is not the best form of argument.

And yet in my experience the only ones I've met who complain about 3E taking power from DMs are the tyrant DMs in my area, the ones who loved nothing better than to drop pianos on unruly PCs for no good reason and who wore hats which said "DM = GOD". Now the rules insulate players from bad DMing like this, and the only people who I've heard whine about this are the ones who only like the DM's chair because it gives them the opportunity to stroke their ego by "screwing with players" (to quote one such DM I know). I will not assume that everyone who feels that less power to the DM is a bad thing is like this, but it is tempting at times.

That is exactly what you are assuming. I am sure it is easier to fling personal insults rather than have a counter argument. As you have no experience with me as a DM, you should do a bit of research before making statements with regards to my person.

But when you get down to it, they are all equal. In spite of all the work the DM does, he is no more important than the players there, since if the player leave, all the DM can do is toss some dice at the cat. Believe it or not, players matter, and if you treat them like they're unimportant, then you'll have a hard time running a good game.

We'll have to disagree here. My experience has shown that a lot more players exist than DMs.

Whether you want to believe it or not, players and DMs are not equal because they do not share equal responsibility for the game. It is that simple.

(Note: I have not once said that I was a "God" or demanded obedience from my players. I have commented on the lack of DM support within the 3e rules and the inference that players (not my current players, but I have seen this quite often during my stint as a Wizards delegate) seek to dictate aspects of the game that are within the bounds of DM responsibility and how this was not a benefit of the game.)

 

[Henry]

I don't have to reinvent the wheel every time a player wants to try to climb a tree.

The problem is that rules arguments often get FAR more complicated than that. I've seen some real stinkers in my time come through our rules forums here, and every one of them legal by the book. (The "bucket-of-snails-and great cleave" strategies still give me a chuckle.) Would a player try something that manipulative? Not all of them, but enough that I as DM would like the option to say, "get serious, please" and continue with the game.

Some of us are gifted with great players who want to share equally in making the game fun, and some of us have been through more than one group trying to find players who look to exploit rules to their fullest benefit. By the same token, some of us have experienced games with "DM as benevolent dictator" and had a great time, whereas some have nothing but horror stories of railroading DMs who want nothing but their vision played out, and damn all who get in the way. Neither is good for having a successful RPG, but I don't like the direction I see -- that if it caters even further to the MMORPG market in the goal of gaining more players, D&D is destined to become the D&D minis game, with all character assumption minimized in favor of options, and the GM/referee becomes eliminated from the game. I am concerned with it losing what made RPGs a different game in the first place.

The more I talk about it, the more I begin to see Diaglo's real point. (Not the "D&D is the one true game" business, but what's really behind it).

 

[Raven Crowking]

No, I'm sorry. Just because it's your campaign does not give you the right to be the ultimate arbiter when perfectly acceptable rules exist.

Yes, it does. It just doesn't give you the right to have players who want to be in your games.


RC