3e, DMs, and Inferred Player Power

[Majoru Oakheart]

(1.) Hobbesian Account. The game posits a limited amount of 'power' that must be divided in some way amongst the players and DMs. Some people think that it is great that 3e 'distributes' more power into the hands of the players, whereas others decry this development. On this view, there is a build-in assumption of 'confrontation' between the DMs and players -- i.e. the DM has interests that conflict with the players, and each group seeks to use the rules in order to 'advance' their respective interests.

Actually the assumption that this requires a 'confrontation' is false. My players and I work together to have fun playing a game. My "job" in this game is to make decisions for the enemies the same way the players make decisions for their characters.

I don't do it because I want to make the players pay or because I'm in confrontation with them. I do it because monsters exist and THEY want to kill the PCs...so I role play them effectively and have fun doing so. It doesn't matter to me whether or not they kill the PCs, but it matters to me that I role play them well.

I don't have any vested interests in the game. I've seen other DMs who are REALLY story focused change rules to prevent the enemies from dying, using DMs fiat to invent new spells on the fly to kill PCs they didn't like, change the entire magic system on a moments notice because he felt that story reasons meant it didn't apply at this time. Honestly, I've seen DMs whose plots or ideas for making the game fun were SO important, the rules were thrown out the window. Really, there should be no reason to change the rules unless you are discriminating against a specific player or plot device.

 

[The Shaman]

I've seen other DMs who are REALLY story focused change rules to prevent the enemies from dying, using DMs fiat to invent new spells on the fly to kill PCs they didn't like, change the entire magic system on a moments notice because he felt that story reasons meant it didn't apply at this time. Honestly, I've seen DMs whose plots or ideas for making the game fun were SO important, the rules were thrown out the window. Really, there should be no reason to change the rules unless you are discriminating against a specific player or plot device.

Bad GMing transcends rules systems.

 

[Sundragon2012]

Don't allow marketing to determine how you run your games

Cutter XXIII hit it right on the head in his post.

DMs do you realize that this player empowerment thing is not innocently about providing options for character development it is about (drumroll please)...

Making money on books?

The books are marketed to players because they outnumber DMs and the WoTC bottom line benefits via increased sales. Now its great that D&D is doing well, but DMs need to remember why the "empowering players" buisness model was adopted. Considering that reality it is a sorry excuse for a DM that allows his game to be dictated to him....not even by designers (which is bad enough) but by bean counters who just want to sell more and more books.

As long as DMs keep theirs heads together and remember that no one can force them to run the game in any way other than they always have they'll be fine. Its the new DMs who can use some advise and help to empower them to say no to whatever violates the integrity of their setting and the atmosphere of the game. Old salts need to help newer DMs and show them that if they choose to keep DMing they will outlast WoTCs current buisness model just like we outlasted OD&D, 1e, 3e and 3e and that they need to have strong, healthy campaigns that transcend the current fads of RPing.


Chris

 

[Belen]

I'm not sure how I come down on this issue, as it's pretty complex, but I will say that it's not implied or inferred. It's explicit now.

WotC is undeniably marketing books that have traditionally been the territory of the DM to players. Under the guise of increased options, they seem to be saying that players should, for example, buy the monster books so they have a "resource" for fighting certain types of monsters. Now, I understand that they're trying to sell books...but it still rubs me the wrong way. How many DMs in this thread want their players whipping out Libris Mortis and looking up the stats of your BBEG?

Check 'em out:


http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/news/20041005news


http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/news/20050307news

Even the DMG II! With a headline, "Who's the Master Now?"


http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/news/20050622a

Related issues...

It seems to me that WotC cares more about selling books NOW than they do about the long-term health of the hobby.

But then again, I quit playing D&D for good a few years back. It is an extremely big and complex system (note that "big" and "complex" are not pejorative terms here), and some people like the degree of customization that's inherent to such a system. For me, it's a total headache.

These days I run d20 Modern (streamlined!) or Savage Worlds (fast! furious! fun!).

I bought a 3.5 PHB so I could play it if I want, but I can't see myself buying anything else for D&D at this point or in the foreseeable future (and I'm a 20+ year vet!).

Tom, you rock!

 

[Sundragon2012]

Far too few people are speaking to, or even noting ,the reason the game has taken the direction it has. The fact is that if more DMs wrapped their head conceptually around the idea of a group of marketing gurus sitting around decided how YOU will DM your game based on how much money can be made, you would care a hell of a lot less about rulings from on high and put your foot down and say no when necessary. In other words you would be a DM.

Let it sink deep in there folks.


Chris

 

[Varianor Abroad]

WotC is undeniably marketing books that have traditionally been the territory of the DM to players. Under the guise of increased options, they seem to be saying that players should, for example, buy the monster books so they have a "resource" for fighting certain types of monsters. Now, I understand that they're trying to sell books...but it still rubs me the wrong way. How many DMs in this thread want their players whipping out Libris Mortis and looking up the stats of your BBEG?

Actually...me.

For two reasons. First, my PCs often remind me of abilities that exist for the BBEG even if they get hosed. Their good players. Second, I so rarely use anything straight up from a book that my players are used to being surprised.

This, by the way, is an excellent thread. I particularly like Majoru Oakheart's post and just want to give it two thumbs up!

 

[Majoru Oakheart]

Speaking for myself, I think as long as there are innovative players, the role of the GM cannot be reduced to handling just the background, or reading shaded boxes from a published adventure - to do so stifles player options by making only that which is in the rules possible. This is the strength of systems that don't attempt to cover everything that comprises the "physics" of the world - it allows common sense and rule synergy to expand to cover the circumstances that arise as a result of player ingenuity.

I disagree, the DM and players should be able to use the rules as a solid basis for role playing as it covers most common things that people will do. For anything beyond the scope of the rules, the actual RAW can be used as a springboard to come up with new rules a lot like the originals that fit rarer situations. Plus, I've rarely, if ever, come up with situations the rules didn't cover. I allow my players to do anything they want, but if they are looking for combat bonuses for doing strange things, they find they don't get them in my game.

Any good DM should use common sense to interpret the rules anyways. A couple of the game designers have stated this directly. The rules ARE there to make the game easier on you so you don't have to make rulings for every action PCs do, not to provide a straight jacket that can't be changed. Even my players know that in very specific situations, the rules may be SLIGHTLY modified, but compared to other people's house rules, people probably think my rules ARE the ones in the book.

I have found plenty of instances where the rules are simply not up to the task of adjudicating actions that I as a player, or players in the games I GM, want to attempt. It's unfortunate that there are gamers who perceive this to be some sort of control issue or power struggle.

As I said before, this should be rare..the grapple rules can be used for a lot of things that "don't fit", tripping, disarming, charging all can be interpretted loosely to allow almost all situations.

I don't see it as a control issue, per se. I am just tired of games I was playing being ruined because a perfectly valid idea on my part was ruined by a DM that thought it was stupid(either because of a lack of imagination to see something as possible or because of a perceived balance issue without ever having tested it to see if there was a problem) and changed to rules so it was nearly impossible to succeed.

 

[Raven Crowking]

Some thoughts:


1) It takes no more than a cursory examination of the threads on this board to demonstrate that there is a large and vocal group of players who do interpret the WotC material to mean that a DM should allow any option unless there is an extremely compelling reason to say no. I.e., the DM whose world was long ago established as having no orcs should allow a PC to be a half-orc if that is what the player wants because there must be some way to explain the presence of this anomaly.

Then, as the anomalies mount in the campaign world (i.e., each player gets to be what he or she wants, or one player keeps making setting-bending characters) and the integrety of the world is destroyed, these same players blame the DM.

2) If you're a DM, and your players are doing as much work as you are, then by all means let them make the decisions. Apparently, they're making them anyway. For most groups, however, the concept of the players doing as much as the DM is ludicrous.

Wow, you have pretty crummy players. In the past, I've had players:
* design a mage's guild for a part of the city they were based in
* come up with such interesting story hooks for their characters that I based entire
plots around them
* wrote up summaries and experiences of their characters between sessions
* explained key parts of the rules that pertained to their characters (not always in their
favor!)

In the future, I plan to:
* have one of the players design the home base for a manor house they intend to buy
* possibly layout an entire section of town
* design a prestige class for an order of knights they plan to join

Thorin, but from where I sit you have excellent players. However, if that is work equal to the work you are doing, then you are not doing a sizeable fraction of what I do before a game. I, too, have had players come up with story hooks that I based plots around -- but a one-page character background that I use to develop 100+ pages of material does not make the player's contribution equal in my eyes.

Nor do I expect the players' contributions to be equal. That is not their job.

3) Telling me that I cannot say "No" prevents me from doing my job as DM...or it would prevent me if I listened. The DM has an absolute right to intrepret, change, allow, and/or disallow rules as he/she sees fit. If the DM is a good one, it will enhance the experience for the players. If the DM is a bad one, it'll mean that game day is a lonely day for that DM. If the DM is a mediocre to poor one, people will play anyway then come onto EnWorld to complain about what a bad DM that person is.

4) The current "default style" makes mediocre DMs. If your DM is worse than that, then having a mediocre DM probably seems pretty good. If your DM is better than that, he/she is probably not using the "default style".

5) The Shaman said it, and it bears repeating: "Bad GMing transcends rules systems." Of course, good GMing transcends rules systems, too...but often because it rewrites them.

6) Not only do I reserve the right to say No, but I reserve the right to completely rewrite the rules from the ground up. Modify the classes. Change the races. Redefine feats and spells. Finally, I reserve the right to not tell you all the rules ahead of time. Sure, you may have the character generation rules, but there are feats and spells the PCs must learn of in-game, and monsters can be quite different.....


RC

 

[I'm A Banana]

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

This sentiment (and the similar ones about DM's putting so much time and effort into the game that they deserve a better say) is incorrect.

Or, rather, it is so completely alien to any concept I have of gaming that it makes my head boggle.

Yes, DM's put more work into their campaigns than players. Yes, they have a bigger job. But to assume that this gives a DM some sort of entitlement to carte blanch run roughshod over everyone else at the table on some sort of die-infused power trip in the interest of what one person views as "a better game" seems really crazy to me.

The DM does the bigger job because the want to. If you don't want to do it, don't. If you do want to do it, well, you aren't entitled to some sort of unlimited authority because of it. The game is not YOUR creation. You need players, too. The game is a group experience. Yes, the DM does more work. But that's because they want to -- and if they like that side of the game, why should it be considered "more work" for them?

If you're not DMing because you want to and it is actually more work for you that you don't enjoy, stop doing it and let someone who enjoys spending a few hours a night crafting maps, NPC's, and worlds do it. Or, alternately, work with you group (not over the top of it like some maniacal overlord) to change the game so you do enjoy that aspect of it.

It's not a hard concept to grasp. People DM because DMing is FUN for them, more fun for them than playing. You aren't owed anything just because you generated NPC's.

That said, DM's have, AFAIK, all the power in the world should they exercise it. But players are being understandably more cautious now than they ever were in old editions. The simple reason is that the rules are *better* now than they were in older editions, and so they don't *need* as much tinkering and tweaking. Thus, tinkering and tweaking the rules is seen as a vanity, not a nessecity, and players may be reluctant to sign up for something that they may hate just because some guy really likes his own little ruleset. This nervousness grows in the new edition because the core ruleset is so good, that deviation should be more tempting than vain. If you have someone who thinks hit points are unrealistic and you show them a game using the Grim & Gritty HP system, they might be intrigued. But for the majority of players who are perfectly happy with the HP system, a change like the G&G rules is too much of a gamble. If it ain't broke...

 

[Umbran]

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

It seems a common misconception that "the DM is the ultimate arbiter" equates to "the DM is frequently arbitrary (or worse)". Only the latter is likley to prevent you from having players who want to be in your games. I've seen many a DM take the ultimate arbiter role, and have plenty of people who want to play, because they are fair and consistent.

Someone made the argument that the DM would (or should) always have more power because the DM puts more time and effort into building the campaign. This is correct, but not in the "effort yields power as a reward" sense.

The DM knows what's in the game world, the PCs, the monsters, the plot hooks, the whole enchilada. If the DM knows what's going on better than everyone else, the DM is in the best position to guide the game to the most fun for everyone. Thus, the DM probably ought to have the most power to guide at hand. In essense - the DM is the one who is in the best position to solve problems, and so should have the ability to do so.