3e, DMs, and Inferred Player Power

[ThirdWizard]

Go to six flags for a day, miss a lot.

Why do you assume "the players" is a fixed group?

Because that is the way I play. You're free to run a game your way. That's great. If I had to run a game that way, though, I might not play. My group is myself, John, Alan, Angela, and Kevin. That's it. That's how it is. Live with it. Your fun != my fun.

can both the GM and the players have fun with a compromise play style.

Eight years. Eight years I've been doing it like this. You ask me if it works? You ask if we're having fun? That's a silly question. If we weren't having fun, it wouldn't have lasted eight years. Sure, the group has changed. People move, I invite other friends to come over and play every other weekend. Only two are left from the origional group (half the player pop though). One person drove six hours on weekends to play my game during the Summer. And, you ask if its fun.

 

[ThirdWizard]

I am saying that the DM is not obligated to compromise. The DM can make any campaign setting he likes, with the intent to run it in any way that he likes.

The DM isn't obligated not to kill all the PCs in the first minute of an advenure on a whim with lightning from the sky either. Saying a DM doesn't have to do something means absolutely nothing to me. What we should be discussing is what is a DM supposed to do to run a good game. You can keep saying noone is obligated to do anything. Well, that's great. They arn't obligated. Should they? If I ask "should a good DM compromise?" and you answer, "he isn't obligated to," that is effectively the same as responding, "no, he should not compromise," for all intents and purposes.

The players are not obligated to compromise. The players can create any type of characters they like, with the intent to play them in any way that they like.

The players should compromise. They should talk with the DM and determine what kind of game is going to happen, then they make characters based on the game. If we decide to run a Ravenloft campaign, then the players know what to expect. Likewise, if they agree to play in a game that takes place in remote barbarian lands, then they know how to create characters that fit into that environment.

In other words, the Players shouldn't be expected to try to break the internal consistancy. That would be counter-productive, and if you have players who enjoy being counter-productive, the fault isn't with the DM being too lenient, the problem is with the players themselves.

 

[The Shaman]

It's strange to see people telling me that I'm not entitled to have fun when playing a game of D&D.

I haven't heard anyone say anything of the kind - what I have read is that fun for one group may not be fun for another.

"Fun" is a moving target in this context.

That my fun as a player is contingent on the DM's fun.

Conversely the GM's fun is contingent on the players' fun - everyone in the game should be enjoying themselves.

That doesn't mean that every single thing that everyone at the table would like to see will be included in every game. I may think that it would be fun for run a rogue who's a second-story man, spending all of my time in the city burgling rich merchants, but if the rest of the players and the GM are headed off on a dungeon crawl or a wilderness trek, then my thief will join the rest of the adventurers and dream of stolen rubies until next they return to town.

That I am not allowed input into the world despite playing one of it's heroes and/or adventurers.

As a player you do have input into the world - your character may well shake the world to its literal foundations over the course of several campaigns, to the point of doing battle with the gods themselves.

However, if the GM says there are no elves in the setting, there are no elves.

You can certainly ask for anything you want - you should not have an expectation of getting it just because you asked, however.

That the DM is entitled to my acquiescence.

Yes, the GM is entitled to your acquiescence if you join the GM's game.

You are not obligated to play in that game. Once you join the game however, you do agree to submit to the GM's vision of the setting. You can certainly ask if your character can take this feat or that prestige class, but you do not have the right to get twisty about it if the GM says no nor do you get to decide if the reason is "good enough" or not. That is the GM's perogative. Your perogative is to leave if the game isn't working for you at that point.

That a GM is provided with this role in the game is contingent on presenting something that the players will enjoy, which generally means offering the player interesting options for classes and races, writing an variety of adventures types such as dungeon crawls and wilderness treks and artistocratic intrigue, and creating an immersive setting filled with interesting places, creatures, and peoples. The fact that a GM can severely limits player options doesn't make it a good idea in many cases, nor does it mean that players are in any way obligated to play that GM's game.

OR....
The DM should run a campaign where the half-fiendish earth elemental genasi or traditional cleric of Pelor is permissable.

Both are valid and I think there should be compromise.

This quote is the crux of the matter. Kamikaze Midget, there is a fundamental disconnect here between what you believe and what the core rules say: whole sections of the DMG describe campaign- and world-building, including choosing the classes, races, and deities that fit the setting that the GM creates. That is the rules as written: there is no "should" with respect to character classes, there is no "valid" other than what the GM indicates is appropriate for the game.

Your argument falls apart when you insist that one set of rules (character classes, monster races, core-book deities) trumps another set of rules (world-building, the GM's role).

Just as a DM shouldn't throw high AC monsters against a party that doesn't have a fighter...

The DMG suggests that there are a couple of different ways to approach encounter development. To paraphrase, one is the tailored approach, in which encounters are crafted to challenge the party's abilities, and the other is the status quo approach, in which the world exists as it is and the party must adjust to meet it.

I personally favor the latter approach which means in this context if the party is deficient in one or more areas of expertise, it's up to the players to find ways to strengthen their weaknesses. I don't pull my punches if the players don't create a well-rounded party of adventurers.

The idea that a party of wizards should run around and never encounter a high AC opponent would destroy the verisimilitude of the setting for me as a player or GM.

...a DM should change his setting or a published setting based on what they'd have fun doing.

*sigh*

It may surprise you to know that I recently did exactly this: we changed games based on the fact that the players wanted to try something different. I was running a historical fantasy game: one of the players really loved the genre, another found it interesting, but two others were feeling a little lost - they were having trouble with the historical aspects of the game, so it was making it difficult to relate to their characters and roleplay them the way they wanted to. When we concluded our last adventure, I suggested trying something different, a future/apocalypse game instead. We started it last weekend, and the first adventure went really well.

Do I think this is how it "should" work? Yes, and most definitely no.

Yes, the GM should offer a game that players want to play, unless the GM wants to sit home alone on Saturday night. This is the broad brush stroke.

Most definitely no, in that "should" as it's used here implies an expectation and an obligation on the part of the GM to make the campaign an amalgam of what players want to see, a POV that is simply unsupported by the rules themselves. This is the fine penwork.

A couple of the players expressed the opinion that playing a more contemporary game would be fun, and I obliged them with a post-apocalypse game - that is the broad stroke. The game is based on a variety of Seventies movies such as Logan's Run, Planet of the Apes, Zardoz, and so on - if one of the players wanted to play a mutant character with six arms, the answer would be no, as mutations are not available to the adventuerers at the start of the game, based on setting considerations. This is the detail work.

So what's my point? The game is a social contract: the GM offers a game that entices players to join, and the players accept the GM's vision for the setting. It's a reciprocal relationship. If I understand you correctly, you would call this a compromise, but I disagree - no one compromises anything in this instance. It is rather a reflection of their mutual interest.

 

[fusangite]

Shaman,

That was awesome. It's the first ENWorld post I would describe as "magisterial." It should join the archive.

Because that is the way I play. You're free to run a game your way. That's great. If I had to run a game that way, though, I might not play. My group is myself, John, Alan, Angela, and Kevin. That's it. That's how it is. Live with it. Your fun != my fun.

What would happen if you had more friends who wanted to play in a game than spaces in the game for players? Once you reach this situation, as I did 17 years ago, how do you proceed?

Eight years. Eight years I've been doing it like this. You ask me if it works? You ask if we're having fun? That's a silly question. If we weren't having fun, it wouldn't have lasted eight years.

Forgive me not finding this to be an obvious answer but I have too many friends who have gone through divorces recently. Anyway, I'm glad to hear your style works for your group.

 

[ThirdWizard]

What would happen if you had more friends who wanted to play in a game than spaces in the game for players? Once you reach this situation, as I did 17 years ago, how do you proceed?

That happened, and sadly, I had to let the new players go. Five Players is really the max I want to DM for. Seven is pushing my limits to giveing individual attention, and more than that and I'm like a newbie DM again.

Ironically, soon afterward, people's life issues popped up, and the group dropped to three (including myself) for a while. That showcases the downside of having not enough people as well, when your friends don't have the time to give to gaming.

 

[Raven Crowking]

The DM isn't obligated not to kill all the PCs in the first minute of an advenure on a whim with lightning from the sky either. Saying a DM doesn't have to do something means absolutely nothing to me. What we should be discussing is what is a DM supposed to do to run a good game.

Sure, we could discuss that...but that would be a different thread topic.

The topic of this thread relates to whether or not the DM is ultimate arbitrator in the game, to whether or not WotC or other agencies are fostering a sense of entitlement to some other form of arbitration among players, and whether or not that is a good thing.

"Tips for Great DMing" would be a wonderful thread. It just isn't this thread.


RC

 

[ThirdWizard]

Wait, wait, wait.

You're relating this to the topic at hand? I thought this was some tangent that people had gone into because we broke several hundred posts already. That makes this simpler.

The origional poster had the feeling that the books inferred that the DM can't say no. This is, of course, innacurate. The books infer not that the DM shouldn't say no, but they do imply that there is nothing wrong with saying yes. Historically, the books empowered the DM so that it was his job to say no except when it suited him. Historically, the DM was in a more adversarial relationship with the Players. This is no more.

I refer to to my post in another thread.

A big change from previous editions is that the players are now supposed to know the rules. When the players know the rules, the DM loses much power. Back in the day, players were afraid to read the DMG because of the righteous wrath that would surely be inflicted upon them if they dared desecrate the book. Even in 2E that was the case. If the players don't know the rules, then the DM has got much more of a grip on the game. Not only through knowlege, but through the player's fears of what they don't know.

Previously D&D was like playing poker where only the dealer knew the rules. You could bet and you knew that the more similar cards you had the better, and an inkling that consecutively numbered cards were good. But, beyond that, you had to rely on the dealer to tell you who wins. Now, the Players can look at the hands they are dealt and have a good idea of where they stand in the game, even if they can't see everyone else's cards.

So, the DM can't alter the rules as much as he could, becuase the Players now know the rules. Before he could say that having the hand 5, 6, 7, 8, A was almost as good as a straight. Now he can't. He could outright say that a PC can't jump a 10' pit, and now he can't say that, because the rules cover jumping and the Player knows them.

This isn't about DMs having control over what comes into their games. That isn't where the real power comes from, and it never really was. DMs used to be encouraged to kill PCs. Now they arn't. They used to be taught to keep the rules from the Players, and now they're right there for the Player to read. Heck, they're marketing traditional DM only books to Players now!

So, we bring this around to the DM allowing or disallowing something. Now, the game is more balanced with the idea that everything that is written will work in a traditional, generic, D&D game. Before this wasn't really the case. Especially in 2E there was an arms race going on. Things would be unbalanced and it was the DM's job to adjudicate things so that his game stayed balanced if that's what he wanted. The idea wasn't to allow things, it was to disallow things. A DM had to disallow things or his game would soon spiral out of control.

That isn't the case anymore. You can play a vampire fiendsh half-dragon PC in a game and it won't be unbalanced, it will probably be weak. So, now the DM disallows this only if it won't fit his campaign. Before the DM would disallow it if it wouldn't fit the campaign or because of a rules consideration (unbalancedness for one). So, now the DM has half the reason to disallow it.

So, the DM is less likely to say no nowadays. Wanna play a bladesinger? In 2E I balked at the idea of letting that kit into my games. I didn't care that it fit a character. It was overpowered and there was no way it was going in. Now? It's a PrC and its balanced for play. I can now allow the bladesinger PrC into my game as an attainable goal for a PC whereas before I would have said no.

So, for these reasons I have to say that 3E is definately giving to the Players, and that the DM's job is not only easier, but it is a lot more flexible in terms of saying "Yes."

 

[Raven Crowking]

Well, see, now we agree.


RC

 

[ThirdWizard]

Well, see, now we agree.

Woohoo!

*wonders how much that misunderstanding padded his postcount*

 

[helium3]

Sure there can. The DM can be something other than a bubbling pot of ego and try to make things fun for the group as opposed to fun exclusively for him/herself.

You're entirely correct that both the players and the DM's need to have fun. That's the point of the game. Sometimes though, I think that players lose sight of the idea that what's fun for players isn't necessarily fun for DM's.

With players, generally the enjoyment of the game is rolled up in creating characters, running them through encounters, watching them become more powerful and building up a group oral history about things that have happened in and out of game.

With DM's, they don't quite get to do this. Yes the DM gets to participate in creating the oral history by being the person that places the encounters, but it's not the same as being one of the people controlling the prime movers. As the DM, you never really get to "win" or do anything pro-active. I think it's a bit analgous to the differences between the coach of a team and the players of said team. Sure the coach has significant input into the success of the team as a whole, but it's the players that are ultimately responsible for whether or not games are won.

From my experience, players often need to make sure that they pay attention to what it is that makes a DM's experience enjoyable. Obviously, if being an egomaniac and punishing players is what floats the DM's boat, the players should find someone else to do the job. I think that many DM's find the game most enjoyable when the players show interest in the setting, start asking questions about it and try to play characters that "fit." Things become problematic when players insist on running characters that don't "fit" and generally don't give a thought to whether or not what their characters are doing things that make sense within the context of the setting.

Conversely, DM's need to take time to find out what it is that their players find enjoyable, and modify their setting to incorporate that. However, given the burden of work necessary on the part of the DM to get the game rolling, I think the lions share of compromise is on the part of the players. They need to find a way to satisfy whatever itch it is that's motivating them within the context of what the DM is attempting to create. If they can't satisfy that itch, then the DM should generally find a way to allow it to be satisfied, unless the itch is something like "I want to be the best and make all the other players feel inadequate."

All in all, this IMHO optimal style of gaming requires a lot of communication between DM and Player about what both roles want out of the game. If this communication doesn't happen or either side is unwilling to compromise, then the game generally sucks for some if not all of the people involved. In situations where someone wants something radically different and is unwilling to compromise, it's best to just cut the losses and ask that person to leave. After all, the point is to have fun, not dread gaming sessions.