3e, DMs, and Inferred Player Power

[Greg K]

My feeling, I would rather not DM than DM a campaign that I did not consider fun. Similarly, I would rather not play than participate in a game in which I was not having fun.

Now my style of DMing, when I create a campaign world, I determine what core rules are tweaked including the availability of races, classes, spells, items, the ready availability of magic items etc.. I also determine what content,if any, is available from which supplements. The players have no say in those matters, because I created the setting and I know the feel I want to invoke (or is it evoke) as well as background that they do not have. The players are free to take part or not take park. it is their choice. It comes down to RC's excellent cookie analogy

However, the above aside, once play starts, it is about my players. They are free to give me ideas or take the campaign in directions that I had not planned once play starts.
Edit. That is provided what the setting allows. Just because, a player wants the character to meet an elf, itjust isn't going to happen if elfs do not exist in the world.

 

[ThirdWizard]

RC, I think I understand you much better now.

On the subject of entitlement:

I think I'm beginning to see this as more of a semantic difference. The DM should start plans by looking at what he would perceve as fun as should the players. I don't see this as an entitlement issue, but simply as people approaching the same situation from their own perspective. When the DM is having fun, the Players will get a more enjoyable game. When the Players are having fun, the DM will have fun and gain a tremendous sense of accomplishment.

You have to start off with your own feeling of what should constitute the game. I origionally thought you meant that the DM was entitled to more than the Players because of the extra work he was putting in. I think now you are saying that the DM should have a larger degree of freedom because that will allow him to be a better DM. If I'm wrong in this, be sure to correct me.

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.

Touche (<-- pretend the little thingy is there)

However, I still do play with my group, and I wouldn't let another game interfere with the games that we play together.

On the topic of commerce:

Again, I think this is more a semantics issue. If you were trying to model social interaction, say with a computer model, you might be able to work it like that. Noone at the table is probably thinking in those terms, and I think that's what it is lacking by way of analogy.

I don't see the DM as offering a service to the players. Perhaps I'm taking a more egalitarian approach.

What happens when not everyone is getting what they want? Over the years, I've accomplished everyone getting 90% of what they want. I don't really think DMing is all that difficult if you know your players. Knowing your players is very important, and the DM who does has a far easier time. So, the Arthurian example would not happen to me, because I would know if my players would be up for something like that (they wouldn't), and I would alter my plans accordingly. So, while I'm not obligated to do so, I think it is not only in my best intersts to do so, but in the best interests of the game itself.

Do I have to? No, I don't. Do I want to? Yes. Because I want us all to enjoy ourselves.

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.

Hmm... In some (many?) groups, yes. We don't have that kind of relationship in our group, however, and I would venture to say that at least some others share this in common with me.

If it were to the point where anyone in the group was not enjoying themselves enough that they were considering leaving the group, the game would change. So, we skip to the DM altering the position or someone else DMing without considering the leaving part. We're flexible enough with the game that leaving due to an in game issue is almost inconcevable. I've never had it happen.

I've disallowed things, but never something someone really wanted. Campaigns are equally likely to start based on a Player's idea as a DM's in our cases as well. It's all very... communist. Issues about what the campaign is supposed to be is agreed upon by all before the campaign begins. After that, the Players know where the game stands well enough that they won't try to break it. Before it begins, however, it is fairly malleable.

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."

*whew* For a while there I was thinking you didn't think the DM should compromise. I was, gladly, mistaken. My bad.

I can see where I come off as a bit too compromisy, maybe, to some? I enjoy a more "anything goes" game than most people do, and so I'm going to be influenced by that. We all have our limits, and mine are perhaps further out than most people's.

 

[Hussar]

Heh, ok, toning down the rhetoric a tad. My bad. At least people have proven that they are pretty passionate about their hobby though eh?

I'll take a stab at The Shaman's questions. Although, allow me to pare them down a touch from a rather lengthy post. I think I've got them.

The questions are:

1)The PHB and the DMG (both 3.0 - my 3.5 books are in a box in the garage) indicate that the most complex mechanical trap is DC 25 to disable - does this preclude the GM from creating a DC 27 or 28 trap? What about DC 30?

2) Who decides what the "darn good reason" is, the GM or the players?

I'm going to answer those in reverse order. Mostly because I'm lazy and I don't want to look up the rules yet.

A "darn good reason" will ultimately be decided by both. A DM who changes rules on a whim will face resistence from the players. And he should. The players have a fairly realistic expectation that rules will be followed. That's not an unreasonable expectation IMO. Also, I think that the players should be able to expect that major rule changes will be discussed, rather than simply handed down from on high. Granted, as I write that, I realize that campaign specific rules, such as race and class selection likely will be handed down from on high, but, I'm more thinking about in game mechanics rather than campaign creation. During campaign creation, the DM has a fair bit more latitude to fashion whatever ruleset he wishes to use. Certainly players should be encouraged to ask if this or that could be used, but, I don't think that they should be able to presume that something will be in use. For example, if I'm running a Scarred Lands game, the players could reasonably assume that the Relics and Rituals spells will be used, but, not spells from Forgotten Realms. Granted, they can always ask if they could use something, that's fine. But, again, the RAW for that setting 100% supports the DM in saying no. Conversely, I don't think that a player asking to play a Warforged in an oriental game really has much of a leg to stand on. Again, the RAW for the setting completely supports the DM and not the player.

During gameplay though, things get a little stickier. The players will generally assume that rules will remain fixed throughout the session. And, I don't see that as a problem. If a conflict in interpretation comes up, obviously the DM is going to have to have final say, if just to get the game going again. The issue could be shelved until after gameplay and then hashed out later. That's how it's done in many campaigns anyway.

However, if the DM decides to change rules in the middle of the game, without warning, I think the players have every right to challenge the DM. And, no, the RAW will not support the DM in this case. The DM has chosen to move away from the RAW in any form and cannot expect the RAW to support his decision. That's just silly to expect the rules as written to support unwritten rules. In another thread, someone mentioned a DM who nerfed the flat-footed rules in the middle of the game. Now, the RAW does not support that decision, of course. A great deal of the game is built around the existence of being flat footed. If the DM decides to do away with this rule, then he sets up a situation where it is completely his opinion vs the players and the players have the benefit of the RAW to support their viewpoint. Should a DM be allowed to do this? I'm not so sure. I think that major changes in rules should be done outside of game with a great deal of deliberation between the DM and the players. Simply imposing new rules without any feedback is a bad idea, IMO.

Ok, I've strayed a bit from the question. Sue me.

The point of the thread has been, does the RAW support DM abilities to say no. I think it does. Certainly, books are being targetted towards DM's and players. Of course they are, WOTC and others want to sell more books. If they flat out state that Book X is for DM's only, then they can't sell as many books. However, just because the books are being marketted to players in no way removes the support the DM's get from the RAW. Once the DM, usually with the input from players, has decided what constitutes RAW for that game, those RAW support anyone who supports those rules. They only fail to support those who deviate from those rules. Well, isn't that precisely what RAW should do? Support those who follow the rules and not support those who don't?

Ok, back to question 1.

I'm going to slip into 3.5 answers for this, because I'm not sure how to answer in 3.0, those books aren't here.

I see nothing in the RAW which precludes a higher than DC 25 mechanical trap. Granted, the highest listed is 25, and, really, with the technological level of most campaigns, you won't see much higher than that, but, there's nothing stopping a DM from having one. As I was told earlier about the wealth guidelines, they are guidelines, not hard and fast rules. 3e has always included the base concept that anything not specifically outlined should not be added in. Since there is no specific prohibition from creating a DC 30 mechanical trap, then none exists. Any DM or player who insisted that there was such a prohibition would actually be deviating from the RAW.

Thus speaks an inveterate rules lawyer.

 

[Hussar]

Oh happy day. Heh. The international post finally pulled through and I just received Dragon 335 in the mail. Yay. Now, I don't buy that many supplements actually, but, I have been subscribing to Dragon for the past year. So, opening it up, I leafed through the mag and I realized that there was a nifty little point that is very salient to this thread. The basic premise to this thread as I understand it, is that supplemental rules favour the players and take away authority from the DM.

So, leafing through Dragon, I got to the Class Acts section. Now, here's a section of Dragon that's pretty much straight up targetting players. While DM's might find the odd goodie in here, it's players that this is for. Now, what did my eyes behold but a variant monk class- Chaos Monks. Essentially a chaotic monk. Cool idea, not bad execution. Certainly the framework for creating a unique character. The reason I bring this up, is the first section, third paragraph, jumped off the page and bit me on the nose.

From Dragon 335, page 89:

Note The chaos monk is an optional rule that might seriously alter your game. A DM should be comfortable with the concept before allowing it into his campaign.

Here we have a rules supplement that specifically puts the power to veto an idea squarely in the hands of the DM. Looking back at past issues of Dragon over the last year, I see this same thing repeated time and again. "This is a rule variant- ask your DM if he wants to use it" or something to that effect.

I would say that, at least Dragon, certainly isn't taking any power away from the DM. When the rules specifically state that the DM must approve something before it can be used, you cannot really ask for more support than that.

 

[fusangite]

I really don't understand where Third Wizard is coming from here.

Why do you assume "the players" is a fixed group? I decide what game I want to run and then I find players who want to be in it. If I have friends who play RPGs but want to be in a different kind of game,
(a) someone else runs a game they would like and I join them as a player in that game
(b) we hang out in other ways like going out for drinks or meals or whatever, at which we may or may not talk about our respective games
Just because you have friends who are gamers does not mean that your gaming tastes overlap sufficiently for it to be fun to play RPGs together. But, no worries, you can, as RC suggests, go camping or something.

Now, if for some reason, like living in a small community or being a little short on social skills, you can only put together a gaming group with fairly disparate tastes in gaming, you have to ask yourself the question: can both the GM and the players have fun with a compromise play style. If, for the GM, the amount of fun he gets out of a campaign that's not really to his tastes is not worth the time he puts into writing the game, he shouldn't do it. And if none of the other people in the group think they will either, then the game just isn't going to happen. And that's probably good.

To use music as an example, there might be a group of friends who all went to music school together. They might like talking about music together and share an expertise and an engagement with it but if one is a classical harpist and another is a rock 'n roll drummer, forming a band together isn't such a great idea.

However, if the DM decides to change rules in the middle of the game, without warning, I think the players have every right to challenge the DM.

This is a good point -- but ultimately, if they can't persuade the DM he's wrong, all they can do is vote with their feet.

 

[Nighthawk]

I think part of the issue lies in the area in which some playing groups are comprised of friends and others are not (or a mixture thereof). This will greatly influence how people interact in the playing group.

 

[fusangite]

I think part of the issue lies in the area in which some playing groups are comprised of friends and others are not (or a mixture thereof). This will greatly influence how people interact in the playing group.

I don't see it that way. I only play with friends. I only run games to my personal taste; if some my friends aren't into my tastes, we can go for a beer or to a movie instead.

If you find that you need to significantly amend your GMing style to make your players happy, this indicates you don't have enough friends.

 

[I'm A Banana]

Why do you assume "the players" is a fixed group? I decide what game I want to run and then I find players who want to be in it.

And I have friends that want to play D&D and I run a game for them.

But, no worries, you can, as RC suggests, go camping or something.

They want to play D&D. I'm not going to force them to accept my way or the highway when it's not nessecary. My game isn't sacred and unchangable; they can tell me what they want and I'll do what I can (what we can all still have fun playing) to accomodate them. And really, that's what I'm seeing as my main disconnect from RC and BU -- where the origins of the game come from. RC may do a lot of work designing a campaign setting because people want to play D&D and then propose it; he wouldn't have fun rewriting all of that material just because one person wanted a race that didn't fit comfortably. I more start as ThirdWizard does in maybe having a general idea, asking the group if it sounds like fun, and running with it. Or in having the players design characters before I do any sort of campaign work. I don't HAVE to run my particular campaign to have fun, so it is much less important to me to preserve this sacred ideal of my authority over it.

They might like talking about music together and share an expertise and an engagement with it but if one is a classical harpist and another is a rock 'n roll drummer, forming a band together isn't such a great idea.

Speak for yourself, man! That synthesis sounds awesome. Almost as sweet as the hardcordian!

 

[Primitive Screwhead]

If you find that you need to significantly amend your GMing style to make your players happy, this indicates you don't have enough friends.

-or- this means that your freinds gaming background is different than yours

-or- this means your freinds dont play DnD and you game at a store, trying to find some freinds that play..

-or- ... the list goes on. Its not like my entire world revolves around roleplaying.

gee. perhaps this assumption of the extreme could be a bit offensive and not really needed here?

 

[Thotas]

I've been checking this thread frequently, haven't posted to it in a while ... let's just say Raven CrowKing has saved me a great deal of typing. (Incidentally, RC, your "baker analogy" is called "Social Exchange Theory" by sociologists. It has a long and well respected history. In this instance, it basiclly says time is money, and how we spend our time and who we spend it with is governed by the same rules economists apply to capitol. Except you used cookies instead of time.)

One small point from a while back I do want to bring up ... someone was differentiating between a strong DM and a good DM. Now, it's true, I've run into the strong DM who wasn't a good DM and yes, they fuel many nightmare scenarios referred to on this thread and others. But I've never met a good DM who wasn't a strong DM. Because any good DM must convey the atmosphere of the world he's running, be it home-brew or store-bought, and to convey it, he has to know it and enforce it.

The other thing I want to bring up is that I see more and more agreement with DM empowerment. Various specific points that we pro-DM-Str types make keep getting "Well, yeah, that's obviously the DM's place ... but I knew this one guy ..." or in the case of some unlucky types, I knew these eight guys. Those guys aren't relevant. I quote Shaman from pages past: "Bad DMing trancends rule systems", or some such. I'll add that Good DMing does, too. There's a fellow on these boards who calls himself Diaglo who will be more than happy to tell you how few rules you need if your DM is good. I know, you've said it before -- "Those guys are rare, we need rules to keep the crappy DMs from making a mess of things." I repeat, Bad DM is stronger than rules.

The word that it all comes down too, I think, is trust. If you can trust your DM, it'll probably be a good game. If not, it's a waste of everyone's time. I suppose letting the players push the DM around is one way to simulate trust, but it'll never work as a substitute for the real thing.