3e, DMs, and Inferred Player Power

[IcyCool]

Playing a game is not providing a service.

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

I do charge my players. In return for running a game and trying to make sure they all have fun, my fee is a liberal dose of fun for me.

 

[ThirdWizard]

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

The DM is not playing the game? Dang...

I do charge my players. In return for running a game and trying to make sure they all have fun, my fee is a liberal dose of fun for me.

So the player could easily make the claim that he is providing a service: a fun experience for the DM and other players.

 

[Henry]

I'm reading the posts on this last page, and I'm feeling some hostility rising a bit. Let's please think how what we're posting is going to come off to the people we're talking to, because it doesn't help anything if your point doesn't come across because it was made in an agressive manner. Thanks all.

 

[IcyCool]

So the player could easily make the claim that he is providing a service: a fun experience for the DM.

Not unless the player is foolish, to put it bluntly. If I go to a movie at the theater, I did not provide the theater with a service, I paid the fee for the theater to provide me with a service.

 

[D'karr]

The DM is not playing the game? Dang...

He is the quintessential "NON-PLAYER", so in strict terminology he would be non-playing...

 

[IcyCool]

He is the quintessential "NON-PLAYER", so in strict terminology he would be non-playing...

Well, he's no more a player than the referee at a ball game.

 

[Henry]

I can see Thirdwizard's concern, though. I do game with my friends, and I try to accomodate them whenever I can, rather than suggesting another game, because they're my friends, there IS no other game; we don't have so many gaming friends that we associate in several rings or circles - there's just the one, with about 8 people give or take.

However, I still maintain that a DM (whoever that is) needs final say-so, not only in rules disputes but character concepts, because there has to be someone the buck stops with, and it takes a tenth of the time for one person to make a decision than it does five people. The rules can't always be final arbiter, because rules don't account for every situation, as we well know. In my experience, it doesn't totally account for 1 out of ten!

 

[Raven Crowking]

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

Absolutely. Is there any doubt?

Certainly, if this DM wants these players to play in his game, then he can only get what he wants by presenting something they are interested in. Conversely, if a player wants to play in a game run by this DM, then that player has to play in a game that this DM is running. There is no obligation on either side.

It is only when an obligation is imposed that selfishness enters the equation.

This is not "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". It is certainly not a plea "that they should agree to play by his rules."

Your friends do not have an obligation to entertain you. Nor do you have an obligation to entertain your friends. If a game isn't fun, don't play it. Go camping or something instead.

Playing D&D is not the be-all end-all of existence, it is not the only thing you can do for fun, and it is not the only entertainment out there.

Players should play in a game only if they are having fun. The DM, like the baker in my example, is involved in a form of commerce. I entertain you, and in turn you entertain me. What the DM is offering is up to the DM. What the DM accepts in return as entertainment is also up to the DM. This is no different than, say, setting a price to sell a bicycle. The DM can also (and is likely to) auction off the bicycle for the price that is closest to what he is looking for.

Players likewise are involved in commerce for the entertainment they provide. They say, in effect, "I will play in your game provided it is a game that gives me at a certain degree of satisfaction." If they are not satisfied, they do not have to play. In fact, if they are not satisfied, they should not play, even if there is no other game in town.

In the old days, DMs were rare. Nowadays, 3.X has made it a lot easier to be at least a passable DM. There are lots of options out there. There was never a reason that someone should be playing in a D&D game that they don't enjoy. Today, it is easier than ever to make a game that you will enjoy if you cannot otherwise find one.

I also DM because I enjoy it. And I agree that if you don't want the extra work, then you shouldn't DM. However, I disagree with your contention that cookie example is flawed, and to that degree the disproportionate amount of work is an entirely valid observation.

The DM does invite other people to join him. He undertakes that work because he wants to, not because he is obligated to. Gameplay is a "shared experience"; game preperation is not. In this sense, RPGS are more than simply cooperative games. This is a simple statement of objective fact.

Because something is enjoyable, and a hobby, does not mean that there is less work involved. The term "work" does not mean simply "unpleasant work". I even went out of my way to clarify that again.

Call it a "shared world" if you will, but if the group breaks up, who has all the notes and maps of that "shared" world?

My position is, I think, pretty consistent:

1) The DM is entitled to unlimited authority because they DM (within the context of the game).

2) If a player is unwilling to accept the conditions of a particular game, he is under no obligation to play. A player can quit a game at any time if the DM abuses his authority in that player's eyes. A DM is entitled to authority, but is not automatically entitled to players.

3) Making the game fun is everyone's responsibility, and as the players gain more power to determine what is likely in 3.X, they also gain more responsibility to make it fun for all involved, including the DM. Get up or game on. Don't waste everyone's time whining at the table.

If I have varied from this position anywhere, please let me know!

Again, you said it yourself. You DM because you want to. I'll bet dollars to donuts that, when you allow player input, you do this because you want to as well. And, when you say "no" to a player, you do this because you want to.

When your players play in your game, they do so because they want to.

The idea that either players or DM is somehow obligated to the other is abhorrent. As in "Jeez this game sucks, but I guess I gotta go or Jim won't be my friend any more." Or just as bad, "Guess I gotta let him play an elf or Jim won't be my friend." I imagine that nothing like this ever happens in your group, Third Wizard, nor should it ever.

In short,

If you are not having fun, do not play.

(But don't imagine that your choosing to play obligates the DM to do things your way.)​

RC

 

[Majoru Oakheart]

Plus, I find if I get farther ahead than that, I tend to start railroading because I don't want the work I did to go t waste.

Actually, this is a really good point. I had a friends who DMed a game I was never in, but he kept coming to work (we worked together) and telling me what he had planed and what was going on in his game. I kept thinking "poor them".

This DM had pages after pages written about his homebrew setting. He had been planning it for years. Everytime he had free time, he'd write more about his homebrew world. He knew almost everything about his world, including a timeline backwards and forwards. He gave one of the characters in his game a weapon that grew in power as it killed certain types of creatures. He knew what powers it would get when the character became level 20. He gave this to a character who was 2nd level. He also knew the weapon would have to do with his plot later in the campaign. I warned him it was a bad idea as he had no idea if the player would ever discover its powers and even if he did, how was he to discover what triggers the increase in power? Even at that, who says the chracter won't pawn it the first chance he gets because he doesn't want it or the character dies?

He was convinced though. He knew what city they'd be in at each level because he was going to steer them there. He had planned to turn them all into goblins at level 6 no matter what they did or what race they were originally. He HAD to because his plot demanded that it happen.

It smacked too much to me of walking through a novel without being able to change anything. It might have been interesting, it certainly had a lot more story and plot than most of my games because he spent a lot more time thinking about it. However, the game seemed to exist to allow the DM to tell a story to a bunch of players. The players didn't matter to the story in the slightest.

This is the reason I see most DMs changing the rules for: "If I use the rules as written in the book, they might kill my bad guy too early and ruin the plot" or "If I allow this power as written, he can easily save this town without having to go through my plot".

I can tell you that the above mentioned DM used a LOT of DM fiat to change things so that it fit the way he wanted his game to work.

If you stick to the RAW for demographics, you suddenly don't have magic shops because most centers cannot possibly support one.

Well, I use the RAW for demographics as well. Basically, I handwave exactly how it happens, maybe they search town endlessly asking everyone if they know someone who has a magic item or they walk into Magic Items R Us and buy something, however if the GP limit of a town is high enough to support buying a magic item, they can find it. Since I run a game in Greyhawk, the demographics of Greyhawk city allow nearly any item of magic you want to be found there. After all, it is the dumping ground for items that Mordenkainen and Rary want to get rid of.

Still, even if they go to some "smaller" cities, basic magic items are available. Also, I rule they can't find a buyer for any magic items that are worth more than the GP value of the city. It's nice, it's simple and it gets up back to what the fun part of the game is: exploring dungeons and killing enemies.

 

[Raven Crowking]

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

Thanks, D'karr. You brought a tear to my eye....


RC