3e, DMs, and Inferred Player Power

[ThirdWizard]

You make it sound so... formal. The cookie example is flawed, in my eye, because the baker is really making the cookies for himself and inviting people to eat them if they wish. D&D is a shared experience, not one in which you invite people to join you, but in which you work together as a group to enjoy. The baker should be making a variety of cookies which he knows the others will enjoy.

 

[Azul]

So the Eberron setting book tells us the basic house rules, and further supplements (like "Explorer's Handbook" or "Races of Eberron") give more house rules.

How is that different from me giving a house rule document up front and later, when necessity presents itself, bringing new rules into the game between sessions?

Or doing what our gaming group has done, which is to evolve a set of house rules in response to 1) dealing with issues that arose in game and 2) fitting new material (e.g. new WotC books) into the existing campaign. Sure, each campaign gets a set of house rules designed to fit that campaign's particular flavour and those rules are presented up front.

However, many more of our house rules come from times when a player asks "How could I do this?" or "How would that action be resolved?" or "Why is this (insert nonsensical gamist element) this way? We could do it that way (insert interest and simple alternative) instead?". They evolve to meet the needs of the players, the DM and the group's playing style. In my group's case, most of our house rules are the result of five years of slowly learning what particular elements in the d20 rules we found unsatisfying, objectionable or otherwise in need of change.

All that being said, while the DM is indeed the final arbiter of his or her game, that isn't a licence to be a capricious sod who doesn't know the rules. The DM should be well versed in the rules and only change those rules in ways he feels are necessary. Those changes should be discussed up front with players so as to avoid unnecessary surprises and arguments.

Sure, an unexpected and unusual event might force you to ad lib a mechanic to resolve it but if you already have decent tools to resolve a problem, it only makes sense to use them. If you have to drive a nail in, you use the hammer you've got. It's only when you realize that what you really have is a screw that you need to start rummaging for a screwdriver instead of using your trusty hammer.

 

[Majoru Oakheart]

What is the difference?

Isn't this because you believe that the game should feel that way?

Actually, I see this more as the feeling that comes natually out of the rules. The game can lean in certain way, but I generally assume a world where all the options in all the books exist in some way, shape or form and try to imagine what that looks like, what that feels like.

Rather than try to come up with a world and then force the rules to adhere to what that world might be like, I let the rules decide the feeling and tone of the setting. What is possible in this world? Just look at the options.

Thus, I don't feel it's my place to try to force the rules into a different tone or setting when they create their own so nicely.

Honestly, I've looked at changing the rules so they fit different types of fantasy settings before. I realized how much work it would take and thought better of it. If I was going to try to run one of these settings, as I've said before, I'd choose a system more capable of being changed easily or more generic, like GURPS or HERO or even BESM.

 

[Raven Crowking]

You make it sound so... formal. The cookie example is flawed, in my eye, because the baker is really making the cookies for himself and inviting people to eat them if they wish. D&D is a shared experience, not one in which you invite people to join you, but in which you work together as a group to enjoy. The baker should be making a variety of cookies which he knows the others will enjoy.

The baker makes cookies because he enjoys making cookies and he enjoys sharing those cookies. He enjoys the conversation and fun with friends who eat the cookies. But, if the baker likes to make chocolate chip cookies, and you like to eat oatmeal cookies, the baker is not obligated to bake oatmeal, nor are you obligated to eat chocolate chip.

If I make it sound formal, it's because I am trying to cut right down to the basics of social interaction within the concept of a free society. If you entice the baker to bake you oatmeal cookies, well that's called commerce. Money is an abstract unit representing any benefit accruing from an action. If you can obligate the baker to bake you oatmeal cookies, however, that is called slavery.

Likewise, if the baker can entice you into eating his chocolate chip cookies, that is also commerce. If the baker somehow obligates you to eat cookies, that's a form of slavery, too.

Obviously, you can entice the baker to agree to an obligation, which is contractual law. Likewise, the baker can entice you to agree to an obligation. There are all sorts of rules in a free society that delimit what sort of obligations you can be enticed into, though, because the idea itself is contrary to the general rule of free society.

There are few places outside the D&D table that anyone in a free society would even consider imposing such an obligation on another person. This is what the baker analogy was designed to show. And the previous novelist, TV show, shopkeeper and film director analogies were also designed to show (at least in part).

The baker, certainly, can choose to bake a variety of cookies. But the baker is unlikely to do so unless he has some motive to do so. Why should he? I will agree that, if he does so, he is being extremely altruistic. What I will not accept is that the baker is selfish if he is not extremely altruistic.

D&D is a shared experience, yes, but one in which one individual does a disproportionate amount of work, has a disproportionate amount of responsibility, and has a disproportionate amount of control even in the most democratic of groups simply due to the creation of encounters (if nothing else). This person then invites people to share in the enjoyment of that disproportionate effort, at which time (and only at which time) those people contribute a modest amount of work each toward the first individual's enjoyment. During this shared experience, the first individual continues to do more work than any of the others (and, quite probably, than all of the others combined). When the shared experience is done, the first individual has additional work to perform that the others do not. Moreover, as the experience progresses, the amount of work for that individual tends to rise exponentially.

(Note that I am using work here to denote effort, not to indicate whether or not the effort itself is enjoyable.)

If the group of people thinks that the first individual is obligated to serve their needs before his own, they are looking for a slave.


RC

 

[ThirdWizard]

So if the first individual thinks the others are obligated to enjoy his game, he is looking for slaves.

But, neither of those statements make any difference whatsoever. All you seem to be doing is making an emotional plea to show that the DM's job is so hard and the players are lucky to have someone willing to do all this for them that they should agree to play by his rules.

I disagree, and I'm a DM. I DM because I enjoy it. I don't DM because I want to control the game, or because I think its the only way to play the game the way I see fit. If someone else runs a game, they will ask me what I want, I will give input, and we will find a compromise.

Disproportionate amount of work makes no difference. One member of the group has more work because he chooses to. If he doesn't want the extra work, then he shouldn't DM, and I have no sympathy for him if he feels that he is being wronged because the players won't do as he wants.

 

[D'karr]

So if the first individual thinks the others are obligated to enjoy his game, he is looking for slaves.

But, neither of those statements make any difference whatsoever. All you seem to be doing is making an emotional plea to show that the DM's job is so hard and the players are lucky to have someone willing to do all this for them that they should agree to play by his rules.

I disagree, and I'm a DM. I DM because I enjoy it. I don't DM because I want to control the game, or because I think its the only way to play the game the way I see fit. If someone else runs a game, they will ask me what I want, I will give input, and we will find a compromise.

Disproportionate amount of work makes no difference. One member of the group has more work because he chooses to. If he doesn't want the extra work, then he shouldn't DM, and I have no sympathy for him if he feels that he is being wronged because the players won't do as he wants.

I think you missed the point. He is not complaining about the effort. He is explaining the analogy of the baker.

The first individual is providing a service, he is a service provider. He can provide whatever service he wants. The others are consumers of that service. They can consume whatever service they choose. If they want a different service than the service provider provides, then they can ask for it. But the first individual is in no way "obligated" to provide such a service.

It's a simple analogy and one that fits well the role of DM.

 

[ThirdWizard]

Wait, I thought he was saying that was not like the game.

Since, you know, the DM isn't providing a service.

 

[D'karr]

Wait, I thought he was saying that was not like the game.

Since, you know, the DM isn't providing a service.

What?

 

[ThirdWizard]

Playing a game is not providing a service.

EDIT: When you charge your players then you can declare that you are providing a service.

 

[D'karr]

Playing a game is not providing a service.

You're right playing a game is not. DMing a game is quite like providing a service.