3e, DMs, and Inferred Player Power

[ThirdWizard]

I agree that a DM's duty is to be the final arbiter in all situations concerning the game.

I don't think, however, that the DM should put his desires above the rest of the group's. If the group wants to play an all dwarven party in the service of Moradin, and the DM wants to run a Arthurian game with no demi-humans or magic, then I don't think the DM should step in and say he will be running the Arthurian game. Then you have a bunch of dissatisfied players who are playing in a game they don't want to be playing.

The DM doesn't have to run the all dwarven party, either. He doesn't have to run a game he doesn't want to. If one of the players wants to step in and run the game, he's welcome as a player, however.

The best solution, in my eyes, is to compromise. Find a middle ground that everyone will enjoy. There are so many different kinds of games and options for games that I've always found something everyone wanted to play. Usually, I ask them what kinds of characters they are interested in and we go from there. That can define a campaign in and of itself, sometimes. So long as the players are all on the same page in this regard, things have always worked out.

For example, I really want to run an Iron Heroes game. However, two of my players don't. So, no Iron Heroes game. Instead I'm trying out on in PbP. I'll tell you how it goes in five years.

EDIT: RC could you please please please stop using alternate fonts.

EDIT2: Players and DMs are not involved in commerce. Repeatedly saying it doesn't make it true. This is a game.

EDIT3: And, a DM is entitled to nothing. Nothing at all, in my eyes.

I think we are disagreeing on a very basic level. There is only one "currency" at the gaming table, and that is fun. I don't think the DM deserves to have more fun than the rest of his players.

 

[jasper]

No third wizard the baker is making cookies for the people who want to show up. They know he makes chocolate chip cookies regularly. RC appears to saying that since Pirate cat tags along, the baker must make chocolate chip and oatmeal cookies. Or the whole group will not show up. A real example is one of my friends has a food allergy when suits him, after a few months of me dropping the ingredient out of the spaghetti sauce, and then a few times of cooking a small portion for the special person, I gave up. Now that person either eats the spaghetti sauce as I make it (I remind him what is in the sauce) or he eats the noodles plain. In others words if 90% of gamers are enjoying the game why do I the dm have to bend over backward to get 100% satisfaction rating.

 

[ThirdWizard]

RC is saying that the baker should only make chocolate chip cookies if he wants to only make chocolate chip cookies, and only those who enjoy chocolate chip cookies should show up. Those who don't should go find another baker.

But, in my case, there is no other baker in the lands. So, the baker should make an effort to try and please those who he considers his friends when he bakes them cookies instead of sending them away, unable to eat any cookies.

 

[The Shaman]

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".

First, in my experience, the rules will not stop a gamemaster from attempting to railroad the players - a clever gamemaster will simply use the rules to achieve the same end, or fudge the dice outside of the players' view to force a particular outcome.

Second, again in my experience, while I've played with a few poor gamers over the years, most of the gamemasters I know that diverge from the rules do it for setting flavor, not to railroad or otherwise dominate the players. The changes are there to make the game distinctive, and more often than not, I've found the changes added to my gaming experience.

Majoru Oakheart, I agree that railroading GMs suck. However, I don't think that all GMs who use houserules are intent to railroad their players. That's too broad a generalization for me to accept from my own experience.

 

[Majoru Oakheart]

I agree with ThirdWizard. The game is about getting together with friends and having fun.

I've wanted to PLAY in a D20 Modern game for a while, no one will run one though. I'm thinking of just running one myself, but after asking around, no one wants to play one.

One of my friends suggested running a game starting at level 20 in Forgotten Realms. We were all up for trying that, so it happened.

Another one of my friends said he'd like to run a game using the World of Warcraft RPG rules. A bunch of people said they'd like to try that and so we've been playing that for a short while.

A lot of the same people cross over to all my groups because we are all friends and like to play D&D. Most of our games use the same rules. The RAW. We know the WoW game won't allow us to be a lot of things from expansion D&D books, because it is a different setting from most D&D books. None of us have asked if we could be a Nightsong Enforcer or Mage of the Arcane Order, because we aren't sure it will fit in. Even at that, I know the DM well enough that he'd try to find a way to include them because he'd prefer we played characters we were happy with.

My game takes place in Greyhawk and uses adventures written by other people, the 20th level game takes place in FR. Both of us use the RAW as written and allow pretty much anything in any of the WOTC books.

We all agreed to play in each campaign knowing what they were in advance. We haven't yet had anyone try to run a game without magic or in some world too far away from the assumptions in the RAW. We like the game in which you kill enemies, get XP for which enemies you kill, get gold and go back to town and buy new magic items for your character so you can test your skills against new, more powerful creatures. That's the game described in the books.

 

[Majoru Oakheart]

Majoru Oakheart, I agree that railroading GMs suck. However, I don't think that all GMs who use houserules are intent to railroad their players. That's too broad a generalization for me to accept from my own experience.

I'm glad...mostly for you...that our experiences have been different.

All the DMs I know who actually know the rules well don't vary more from the RAW other than slightly, the ones I know who have a list of house rules don't know the original rules well or are trying to railroad.

Then again, I have yet to meet someone who had an idea about D&D that couldn't fit into the RAW.

 

[The Shaman]

I'm still hoping one of the rules-lawyerly folks will tackle my highlighted questions in post 426 - I really would like to hear your opinions.

 

[Raven Crowking]

EDIT2: Players and DMs are not involved in commerce. Repeatedly saying it doesn't make it true. This is a game.

EDIT3: And, a DM is entitled to nothing. Nothing at all, in my eyes.

I think we are disagreeing on a very basic level. There is only one "currency" at the gaming table, and that is fun. I don't think the DM deserves to have more fun than the rest of his players.

Third Wizard,

An alternative fonts have been used for clarity, to highlight specific things, or to indicate that a particular section of text is all part of the same idea. Because it can be harder to be clear in longer posts, as my post length climbs I often find myself trying to find ways to subsection what I am doing. If you find them offensive, I can certainly stop.

1) RE: What the DM is entitled to:

I did not say at any point that the DM is entitled to more fun than the players. What I said was that the DM was entitled to consider what would be fun for him first. Just as each player is entitled to consider what would be fun for him first.

I did say that the DM was entitled to unlimited authority within the context of the game. But also, again and again, I pointed out that said authority exists both for tautological reasons (the players cannot obligate the DM to do anything, or obligate the DM to alter the campaign world in any way, or obligate the DM to allow them to do anything [including play]) and for game reasons (the DM has greater responsibilities and much more knowlege of what is going on behind the scenes than the players do).

I also agreed, repeatedly, that the DM who wishes to have players has to share some (but not all) of that authority with them. Being a DM does not give you a right to have players. A selfish DM is a lonely DM.

I also said that, if the DM had something they wanted to try, and the players didn't want to try it, he was still allowed to get new players and try it.

You want to try Iron Heroes. Your players do not want to try Iron Heroes. You get a new set of (PbP) players to try Iron Heroes. That sounds exactly like what I was talking about.

2. RE: Commerce:

I agree that the only currency at the game is fun. The DM offers fun for the players. The players offer fun for the DM. Honestly, the DM offers himself fun because he enjoys DMing. The players offer themselves fun because they enjoy playing.

No one is obligated to play. No one is obligated to DM.

If everyone is getting what they want, then everyone is happy.

Now, I am pretty sure that we both agree on the above, and the only thing we are disagreeing on here is the terminology. It may seem problematically to some to consider something enjoyable in terms of a transaction. However, within the standard sociological model, this is indeed a form of commerce. And, despite the objections of some, it is perfectly valid to say that the players are providing the DM with fun when they play...and as much (or more) as the DM is providing to the players. DMing is a lot of work, but DMing is fun. If this wasn't the case, no one would DM. They would write novels instead.

It is also perfectly valid to claim that the players barter their contribution in exchange for modifications to the game to increase their own fun. You can couch it in other terms if you don't like the commerce analogy. I am sure that there are better analogies out there; I am just not clever enough to think of them.

3) The Net Effect of These Two Points:

The DM is not obligated to change the campaign world to accomodate the players. However, the players will frequently convince the DM to do so because the DM has fun playing with these particular players, and increasing the players' enjoyment will increase his enjoyment.

Where the change is minor, the DM might make it before even asked, or immediately when asked. Where the change requested is larger, the DM might take longer to consider it before agreeing, or might not be willing to agree because he forsees effects of the change that would adversely affect the game.

4) How this differs from Kamikaze Midget's Theorum (as I understand it)

The DM does not need the permission of players to say "No".

The DM must often rely upon his own judgement as to whether a change is a minor one or a major one.

The DM often has hidden information (including adventure sites) that can be affected negatively by a proposed change. The DM has to weight the rewards of allowing a change against the additional work he must do to accomodate that change. The DM must also weigh whether or not the short-term player fun gained by allowing the change will be greater than the long-term fun potentially lost by some of the consequences of those changes. Because these choices may be based upon hidden information, the DM has to decide whether or not to explain his reasoning to the players or ask them to merely accept the decision.

Intergroup dynamic and lack of obligation means that the players can (and sometimes should) say "we do not accept that" and stop playing. The DM can then either decide to alter his position or seek new players. Or someone else can take a turn DMing.

IMHO, friends will not stop being your friends because a campaign fails.


RC

 

[Raven Crowking]

RC is saying that the baker should only make chocolate chip cookies if he wants to only make chocolate chip cookies, and only those who enjoy chocolate chip cookies should show up. Those who don't should go find another baker.

But, in my case, there is no other baker in the lands. So, the baker should make an effort to try and please those who he considers his friends when he bakes them cookies instead of sending them away, unable to eat any cookies.

Which might be a reaon why you want to make other types of cookies, right?

You are not suggesting that you have to make other cookies.

RC is also suggesting that, if these people are really your friends, they might say, "Why don't you just make those chocolate chip cookies you love to bake? We'll eat them this week."


RC

 

[Primitive Screwhead]

I like Raven Crowkings Baker analogy..

If you only make chocolate chip cookies.. and the clients go elsewhere you will either learn to bake something else or clients who want chocolate chip will show up.

I game with freinds. I offered to provide entertainment in the form of a RPing game.
As the GM, I must see to it that most of my freinds are mostly happy with the outcome.
Its not an absolute 100% of everything to everyone.. in this DnD is a shared experience.. more akin to a play with a director who lost the script than it is to anything else.


In my years of being a GM, I have realized that I must provide the group with what they are looking for. This mean my brand new Paranoia XP books {replacements of my old ones that got destroyed in a flood} will probably never get to see game time soon. Same with my Black Company book, which I bought mainly to read but would love to run.
Ditto: SW WEG, ST:LUG, Aliens {by Fasa}, etc.. etc..
Give me a group of players who want to play game X {and a copy of the books} and I will gladly do the work it takes to make the setting as entertaining for my freinds as I can.

Of course.. give me a GM willing to run game X and some freinds to join in with..forget running it!

Right now I am the only one in my group that has the time to prep for games. The two others willing to run are busy with work/life {new kid.. new job} and rarely make it to our sessions in the first place.

IMHO, what it boils down to is this:
If you wish to participate in a game, realize that your 'fun' is not of paramount importance, and that when you do not have 'fun', don't be an ___ and spoil it for the ones that are.
Doesn't matter which side of the screen you are on.

That being said.. continued lack of 'fun' is worth leaving the game for. A recent experience in Georgia reminded me how annoying some gamers can be to a new-comer. Left that game, started my own with the other new-comers...

anywho...