3e, DMs, and Inferred Player Power

[Jackelope King]

Ah...so if you have nothing to say, then insult. That is not the best form of argument.

Well, I'll point out that the absolute first thing I posted was a counterpoint to your idea that players don't do anything for a game with an example from my own experience. That said, I do appologize for suggesting that you were only running the game for your own enjoyment. I was projecting my experience with bad DMs onto you based on what you wrote, and not on your qualities as a DM.

As you have no experience with me as a DM, you should do a bit of research before making statements with regards to my person.

Did you read the first response I made to you where I specifically gave an example of the group I ran in 3E? You might want to ammend this response in light of what I wrote there.

We'll have to disagree here. My experience has shown that a lot more players exist than DMs.

And I never disagreed with that. I did disagree with your assumption that the game must put the DM above the players. That is all.

Whether you want to believe it or not, players and DMs are not equal because they do not share equal responsibility for the game. It is that simple.

Saying "it is just that simple" doesn't make it true.

(Note: I have not once said that I was a "God" or demanded obedience from my players. I have commented on the lack of DM support within the 3e rules and the inference that players (not my current players, but I have seen this quite often during my stint as a Wizards delegate) seek to dictate aspects of the game that are within the bounds of DM responsibility and how this was not a benefit of the game.)

I never implied that you did such things, and I appologize if my comments came off as such. However, I think that the "lack of DM support within the 3e rules" is a myth at best, and I have never seen a player try to "dictate aspects of the game that are within the bounds of DM responsibility", unless you imply that DM responsbility includes the PC's actions. I don't believe that you mean that, however.

The problem is that rules arguments often get FAR more complicated than that. I've seen some real stinkers in my time come through our rules forums here, and every one of them legal by the book. (The "bucket-of-snails-and great cleave" strategies still give me a chuckle.) Would a player try something that manipulative? Not all of them, but enough that I as DM would like the option to say, "get serious, please" and continue with the game.

And the problem isn't that this sort of adjudication is possible: the problem is when the game swings back to an exercise in creating rules on the spot or when the rules encourage the DM to assert authority over players as a method to run the game. I have no problem with someone saying, "No, you can't trip a snake" or "No cleaving a bag of rats", and as you said, most players don't. Many of those rules loop holes exist as nothing more than a curiosity in the system and have never actually impacted gameplay. I do not think that a DM should be done away with, but I also do not think that a good DM should be someone who routinely changes the rules for little or a poorly-reasoned purpose.

Some of us are gifted with great players who want to share equally in making the game fun, and some of us have been through more than one group trying to find players who look to exploit rules to their fullest benefit. By the same token, some of us have experienced games with "DM as benevolent dictator" and had a great time, whereas some have nothing but horror stories of railroading DMs who want nothing but their vision played out, and damn all who get in the way. Neither is good for having a successful RPG, but I don't like the direction I see -- that if it caters even further to the MMORPG market in the goal of gaining more players, D&D is destined to become the D&D minis game, with all character assumption minimized in favor of options, and the GM/referee becomes eliminated from the game. I am concerned with it losing what made RPGs a different game in the first place.

That's why finding a good middle ground is important, and not sucumbing to either side of the slippery slope. 3E and d20 as a whole are pretty good in regards to finding a happy middle, but they could also be better. However, as someone pointed out above, 3E does a pretty good job of letting even a so-so DM run a good game. I don't think that's a bad thing either.

The more I talk about it, the more I begin to see Diaglo's real point. (Not the "D&D is the one true game" business, but what's really behind it).

What, his hat of d02?

 

[Thorin Stoutfoot]

The flaw here is that I have yet to see players' contribute equally to a game. They show up maybe one day a week and sometimes you're lucly if they have updated their character or had taken notes from the previous session.

Wow, you have pretty crummy players. In the past, I've had players:
* design a mage's guild for a part of the city they were based in
* come up with such interesting story hooks for their characters that I based entire
plots around them
* wrote up summaries and experiences of their characters between sessions
* explained key parts of the rules that pertained to their characters (not always in their
favor!)

In the future, I plan to:
* have one of the players design the home base for a manor house they intend to buy
* possibly layout an entire section of town
* design a prestige class for an order of knights they plan to join

D&D is a cooperative game. The shared milleu is a lot of it, and I think you're missing out by not letting the players help out. It does become more real when players help make it real. Sure, you may have to look out for abuse, but good players who know the rules and care about the game won't push it past a limit.

I too, am happy that the rules for creating magic items are part of the game system, rather than being subject to DM fiat. (Anybody remember the 1e item creation rules? There weren't any) Same goes for spell research, etc. And I DM exclusively for the group I'm in right now but I've played as a player as well. Having the rules there to serve as a baseline helps. Otherwise, you're stuck making up everything as you go along. I defintely don't see it as taking away power from the DM, but it definitely raises the level of DMing the players DEMAND from the DM. In other words, if you're going to deviate from the baseline 3.5e rules, you are now required to make it clear up front what you're going to change and how they change. If you want to change monk abilities fine, but you have to specify how they change up front. I definitely don't see that as being a disadvantage or taking something away from the DM.

 

[Majoru Oakheart]

I have stated this in a couple of thread before, but the basic idea is that there is so much power in the game total. Basically, the list of powers you could have in a game is this:

1. The ability to control the history, tone, and idea of the campaign world
2. The ability to control what NPCs do and say
3. The ability to control what each PC does and says
4. The ability to control how "physics" work in the world (How easy it is to hit, how spells work, etc)

You could also probably split up the physics section into more sections if you want, but it isn't needed.

Previously, the DM was in charge of numbers 1, 2, and 4. The players were each in charge of 3.

Now, the rules are in charge of 4, and the DM is only in charge of 1 and 2. Basically, it removes one responsibility from the DM and puts it out of everyone's hands as more of a third party that stays neutral. It is no longer the sole responsibility of the DM to remember all of the rules, if the DM doesn't remember, there is a book to look it up in or players can remember it from the DM.

The fact that there is a solid set of rules doesn't prevent the DM from coming up with a background and flavour for his world. It doesn't turn him into a computer program. It just gives him some guidelines on which to rest his flavour.

Can't find a place for the Bear Warrior PrC in your game? No problem, simply don't allow it. Want them to be a remote tribe of nature worshipping Barbarians? No problem, that's what they are. Want the wizard in your game to take Skill Focus(Perform(dance))? No problem, he's a dancing fool.

But the rules are there to make sure everyone has a consistant frame of reference on how the world works. People know approximately how far they can jump, about what skill level is required to be able to hit someone (consistantly) who is wearing full plate and has a large steel shield, etc.

Unlike previous editions, however, it isn't considered standard to just change the way the works on a whim because you don't like what the players are trying to do. In previous editions, I've seen DMs say "This wall is magically protected against your spells" or "You can't just DISPEL the magic trap, that's stupid, you have to figure out the puzzle to pass it."

IMHO, 3e DOES support the DM. It tells them how the world works so they don't have to make it up. It tells them how much damage things do so they don't have to guess wildly. It has much clearer rules so that everyone at the table has a good sense of what happens when you cast dispel magic on someone with the fly spell on or fireball a wall. It gives me rules for consistantly increasing the power of enemies that don't make them so powerful that I accidently wipe out the party like I've done in the past.

The flaw here is that I have yet to see players' contribute equally to a game. They show up maybe one day a week and sometimes you're lucly if they have updated their character or had taken notes from the previous session.

I think this is a difference in perspective. I plan for MY session by reading the next couple of pages in the adventure I'm running in Dungeon magazine. I might spend a couple of hours preparing for a session at most, and I LIKE reading D&D books, so I would have read it even if I wasn't running it. Most of the players, on the other hand, tend to have new characters every 2 or 3 sessions as they are continually thinking up new ideas they want to try out. They come up to me at the beginning of each session and bring up magic items they'd like to get made for their characters and ask if they can change a feat on their characters. They seem to do more thinking about the game than I do. I don't even remember their characters names half of the times. That's the beauty of it though, I don't have to. They do it for me.

I offload as much of the responsibilty of running the game to them as possible so I don't have to spend so much time preparing each week. They know the rules, so I can tell them "you are in town, you can buy anything in the DMG under 50,000gp" and then give them an hour to buy stuff. I don't have to have them ask me questions on what and item does or if it is allowed for each item in the game, because I haven't changed any of them.

 

[Henry]

...the list of powers you could have in a game is this:

1. The ability to control the history, tone, and idea of the campaign world
2. The ability to control what NPCs do and say
3. The ability to control what each PC does and says
4. The ability to control how "physics" work in the world (How easy it is to hit, how spells work, etc)

...Previously, the DM was in charge of numbers 1, 2, and 4. The players were each in charge of 3.

Now, the rules are in charge of 4, and the DM is only in charge of 1 and 2.

Based on the arguments over Diplomacy in the rules forum, the DM really isn't in control of #2 anymore,
either. I don't use the book's interpretaion of the effectiveness of diplomacy, but I still ensure that a high roll does modify what the NPC is willing to sacrifice.

 

[Akrasia]

There are two different accounts of the relation between DM and players underlying much of this discussion:

(1.) Hobbesian Account. The game posits a limited amount of 'power' that must be divided in some way amongst the players and DMs. Some people think that it is great that 3e 'distributes' more power into the hands of the players, whereas others decry this development. On this view, there is a built-in assumption of 'confrontation' between the DMs and players -- i.e. the DM has interests that conflict with the players, and each group seeks to use the rules in order to 'advance' their respective interests.

(2.) Rousseauian Account. The game is a collective effort to 'have fun'. Everyone understands that the DM should generally be cut some slack and have the right to make key decisions, given that she has done most of the work in developing the world and the adventures. At the same time, though, the DM wants the players to have fun, and thus tries to accommodate their desires and interests (as much as is reasonable). There is an implicit social contract here that everyone is working towards the same goal, and agreements about how the game should run are premised on this common goal.

I would never want to play in a group that operated according to the first interpretation of DM-player relations (high-school is long over).

 

[howandwhy99]

The more I talk about it, the more I begin to see Diaglo's real point. (Not the "D&D is the one true game" business, but what's really behind it).

Ohh.. there's truckloads behind it. I am not sure why he does not explain it online. Perhaps it's too much and too far away from what gaming is currently considered. Perhaps it easier to condense things down? Or maybe he's just waiting for the publishing rights?

 

[Belen]

Well, I'll point out that the absolute first thing I posted was a counterpoint to your idea that players don't do anything for a game with an example from my own experience. That said, I do appologize for suggesting that you were only running the game for your own enjoyment. I was projecting my experience with bad DMs onto you based on what you wrote, and not on your qualities as a DM.

No worries.

 

[Belen]

There are a lot of people who seem to think that DMs who decry current balance are those DMs who want the change the rules. That is not the case nor was it the real point behind my initial comments. I was never the type of DM that changed the rules no matter what edition I ran.

The issue with 3e lies in the promotion of rules and how those rules interact with the DM. There is a large number of people who have only played 3e. Among that contingent there is the idea that rules trump this DM and that each "option" is a core rule to the game. Wizards has gone to a lot of effort to make the DM appear as a referee. A referee can say no to how a rules is used, not whether the rule is used.

There is a difference. I know a lot of young DMs who believe that they are required to allow any option released for D&D by Wizards. And these DMs are unhappy. You'd be surprised at how many people I meet as a WOTC Delegate.

You just cannot support DMs by not giving DMs their own set of options. It's fine to give players a wide variety of options. I think that is great. However, they have not done the same with DMs. Other than making sure that DMs know that they can say no, why have we not seen books that tell DMs how to craft their own feats, spells, or prestige classes? Or more advice on their website for DMs(other than the occasional adventure of rules clarification.)

Maybe Mearls said it best when he described WOTC on one side and DMs on the other. Instead of seeing DMs as customers, they see them as a threat. A group of people who can compete with them for creating material and thus they see a need to minimize the DM in favor of the rules in order to not have to worry about them ending the need to pay for books.

Personally, I no longer play with anyone who uses the rules to "win" the game, but I have had those people in my group in the past. It is not fun to have 3 hours and 50 minutes of arguments over rules interpretation and 10 minutes of gaming. I have gone through that and it was a horrid experience and that seems to come when the rules are elevated to the point where people do not matter.

 

[Templeton580]

*

 

[The Shaman]

I plan for MY session by reading the next couple of pages in the adventure I'm running in Dungeon magazine. I might spend a couple of hours preparing for a session at most, and I LIKE reading D&D books, so I would have read it even if I wasn't running it. Most of the players, on the other hand, tend to have new characters every 2 or 3 sessions as they are continually thinking up new ideas they want to try out. They come up to me at the beginning of each session and bring up magic items they'd like to get made for their characters and ask if they can change a feat on their characters. They seem to do more thinking about the game than I do. I don't even remember their characters names half of the times. That's the beauty of it though, I don't have to. They do it for me.

I offload as much of the responsibilty of running the game to them as possible so I don't have to spend so much time preparing each week. They know the rules, so I can tell them "you are in town, you can buy anything in the DMG under 50,000gp" and then give them an hour to buy stuff. I don't have to have them ask me questions on what and item does or if it is allowed for each item in the game, because I haven't changed any of them.

Reading the posts by some of the WotC staff, it sounds like this is exactly the kind of Dungeon Master that 3e is intended to produce.

To be 100% clear, I don't mean that in a snarky way at all - it sounds like what the game is evolving to become, and it's consistent with some of the dialog here on ENWorld describing how the current version of D&D was developed.

Speaking for myself, I think as long as there are innovative players, the role of the GM cannot be reduced to handling just the background, or reading shaded boxes from a published adventure - to do so stifles player options by making only that which is in the rules possible. This is the strength of systems that don't attempt to cover everything that comprises the "physics" of the world - it allows common sense and rule synergy to expand to cover the circumstances that arise as a result of player ingenuity.

I have found plenty of instances where the rules are simply not up to the task of adjudicating actions that I as a player, or players in the games I GM, want to attempt. It's unfortunate that there are gamers who perceive this to be some sort of control issue or power struggle.