3e, DMs, and Inferred Player Power

[Testament]

Do you know how annoying it is to have someone sit in front of a laptop, running calculations, and using those to not participate? How about having them calculate CR after every encounter and then annouce to everyone how much XP they just received?

Now, I no longer game with the guy, but the first time he started handing out XP, I almost strangled him. Of course, after that one particular encounter, I allowed everyone to keep the XP that he called out, except him. He got to take that as a negative number.

Well, I'm not you, and I wasn't there, but was that really necessary FIRST TIME ROUND? You could have just told him you didn't appreciate that sort of usurpation, and asked him to stop, rather than pulling out your DM=God stick and delivering an almighty whack?

 

[Belen]

A whole bunch of DM's here need to get down off their FRELLING CROSSES, BECAUSE SOMEONE NEEDS THE WOOD!

uh huh, uh huh...you said...frell.

Yes, the DM does a sporkload of work. Yes, the game can't run without them. YAY, GOOD FOR US. Now, your mileage may vary, and RC and BU's mileage I know does, but last time I checked, a DM with no players isn't gonna being doing much DMing. Work with your players to find a frickin' compromise on disagreements people, democracy does in fact work. We put in the most work of any player, but I don't think that gives us the right to say "my way or the highway!" to the other players! You've got a PC who wants to be able to use the latest splatbook, then work with them, try and find a way to make something work in your game, at least PRETEND to make an effort before saying no. People here are talking about a default yes answer being a bad thing, and yet no-one, as far as I can see, has offered a reason why that's the case.

Shockingly enough, I agree that it is my job to provide a fun experience for my players. I just disagree that the players should always get what they want. Funny enough, when I ran a game with a default of "yes," no one had fun. The players competed with me, they competed with each other, and they could have cared less about supporting one another.

Can't speak for KM, but I know I don't. Can't see a reason for them existing, who's gonna waste XP making something that screws its user? Dust of Sneezing and Choking, BTW, isn't a cursed item!

This one is easy. The evil wizard who wishes to give the cursed sword to Good King Henry to help destabilize his rule and gain power. The evil cleric who wishes to spread hate and malice among the countyside and dupe his foes into "finding" powerful weapons to oppose him etc.

An evil person does not make a cursed item for themselves. They make it in the hope of providing it to the people they dislike.

 

[Belen]

Well, I'm not you, and I wasn't there, but was that really necessary FIRST TIME ROUND? You could have just told him you didn't appreciate that sort of usurpation, and asked him to stop, rather than pulling out your DM=God stick and delivering an almighty whack?

Heck yes, it was necessary the first time around, especially considering I had told him that I was not going to use that idiot CR/XP calc tool on all my encounters when he e-mailed me with the XP he "should" have received from the session of the week before. I do not appreciate telling someone "no" in private, then having someone calculate XP based on his knowledge of the MM and tell the players in the group how much XP they should get.

It was rude, I had spent hours on designing that encounter, including adding class levels and template to the creature and I had already determined the XP of the encounter. His number was smaller, but that is what everyone received.

It someone is being a jerk, then they deserve the DM stick of wrathful smiting.

 

[DragonLancer]

Sorry Testament, but I wouldn't run a game/setting that I don't want to run. I also don't believe that players should be the be all and end all of the situation. As my sig says, the DM is just as if not more so important than the players.

Now I'm not saying that players should play any old tosh just because their resident GM says so, but its up to the GM to decide what is and isn't right with their game. They do the hard work, put the time, blood, sweat and money into the campaign. I would hope players bring a desire to play and a level of commitment.

 

[Raven Crowking]

A whole bunch of DM's here need to get down off their FRELLING CROSSES, BECAUSE SOMEONE NEEDS THE WOOD!

Yes, the DM does a sporkload of work. Yes, the game can't run without them. YAY, GOOD FOR US. Now, your mileage may vary, and RC and BU's mileage I know does, but last time I checked, a DM with no players isn't gonna being doing much DMing. Work with your players to find a frickin' compromise on disagreements people, democracy does in fact work. We put in the most work of any player, but I don't think that gives us the right to say "my way or the highway!" to the other players! You've got a PC who wants to be able to use the latest splatbook, then work with them, try and find a way to make something work in your game, at least PRETEND to make an effort before saying no. People here are talking about a default yes answer being a bad thing, and yet no-one, as far as I can see, has offered a reason why that's the case.

Testament,

From basic blue-boxed D&D through 3.X, I've never had a problem attracting players. The problem I have is that there are a lot of people I don't have room for at the table, and I hate to disappoint them. There are several other people who GM games in our group, and none of them have the same problem. So, indeed, my mileage does vary.

I didn't mean to suggest that I am "up on a cross". The statements you quoted were not to be taken as an excuse for poor DMing; the were meant to be a broad statement of gaming philosophy. And, I suppose, life philosophy. Simply put, the two cruxes are: "If you're not having fun, stop doing it" and "Whoever puts in more work has more say".

Every right has corresponding responsibilities, and every responsibility has corresponding rights. Neither rights nor responsibilities have meaning without each other. Because the DM has so many responsibilities, his rights are correspondingly larger. Because the DM has so many rights, his responsibilities are correspondingly higher.

Time and again, though, I hear the argument on these boards that "a DM with no players isn't gonna being doing much DMing" (or words to that effect), nearly always in conjunction with a statement such as yours that claims that the DM does not have the right to say "My way or the highway."

Of course the DM has that right. No one can be forced to play with people they do not wish to. You cannot force the DM to run a game. You cannot force anyone to run a game in a way you prefer. You may be able to compromise, but your two absolutely always-available choices are "Play in the game I'm running as I am running it" and "Don't play in the game I'm running as I am running it." This is not only true, it is self-evident.

Sure, if the DM is a dink and runs "Dink way or the highway" games, he's going to spend a lot of time at an empty table. I've said this (or things like it) numerous times myself. The qualifier, though, is all-important.

You say, "Now, your mileage may vary, and RC and BU's mileage I know does, but last time I checked, a DM with no players isn't gonna being doing much DMing."

I say, "The twin philosophies stated above, combined with not being a dink, are why our mileage varies."

I have a huge group of players. I have another large group of players begging me to DM. Both groups have others who want in if I am willing to allow it. I have no concerns at all about not having players. Honestly, I don't even have concerns about handling problems that arise with players during the game. Everyone who plays is told, now upfront and in writing, that I am the final arbiter of the game and if they don't want to play under those conditions they can, and should, choose not to play.

And they keep coming.

And, as I said, I'm not the only person in our group(s) who GMs, but I am the only one with too many players. I am also, oddly enough, the only one who doesn't follow a "democracy gaming" philosophy. Is it just possible that there is a correspondence between those two facts?

If you're not having fun, stop doing it. Whoever puts in more work has more say.

Easy rules to live by. Easy rules to game by.


RC

 

[Primitive Screwhead]

Jackelope King, Given that background.. I can appreciate where you are coming from!

I was lucky in that my introduction to gaming was from my brother.. at a time that I was deeply into serious reading.. so my take on gaming is more focused on developing characters and multiple plots than it is on the minute details of the system.
But, being who I am, I also beleive that if you are going to play in a game, you need to understand {a word that is vastly different than 'know'} the rules of that game.

 

[jasper]

(jasper makes sure his two ice cream bar sticks are clean and the rubber band is holding it in cross shape)
Some of DMs like our cross and gotten tired of the train of thought everyone who sits at the table must have fun over the dm's fun. Sorry if the dm is not having fun the game ends quickly.
I had goobers whom enjoyed killing other PCs for what happen in math class Monday.
I had goobers who thought just because in was published by TSR or in the Dragon I HAD to allow it. Jester anyone, Bounty Hunter anyone, Witch npc as pc class etc.
I had people want to play Drizzit! This is after I stated that Drow were going to be shot on sight. (and some players want to side with Drizzit aka pc /star immunity).
I had people who want to play Jedi with the light saber and plans for x-wing in a Traveller campaign. After I said no light sabers.
So since some goober in gamer clothing sits at my table I must bend over allow their version of the perfect them (with cool powers). Because everyone else's fun is higher priority than mine? Sorry no go at this station. I can/will/have passed the chair to the next dm. Or just quit playing. The only thing I do is generally no be a pain to the next dm. Unless it was Super Goober and I want him to learn a lesson.

 

[Varianor Abroad]

Did you know that that was actually brought up in the 1st Edition DMG? The PCs of players found reading the DMG were only worthy of a sudden death, or something like that. The current version is much better in that regard.

Quoted for truth.

I have a notebook from circa 1983 wherein I detail a number of elaborate plots and plans to kill a player's paladin character. (Looking back now I realize that he wanted to be a badass and the 1E paladin came as close as he could get. But it was not the right PC for what he wnated to do.) He was routinely reading the DMG and the adventures that I was running. Among the reasons I stopped running published adventures, this comes to mind. But I faithfully followed the instructions in the DMG to "punish" him, setting out a plan to kill him 18 times since he had an 18 Con. For those too new to the hobby to know, that meant he couldn't be resurrected after the 18th death since you lost 1 Con every raise.

Did I ever finish the plan? Nope. I started to grow up. I since learned from that that experience (and others) there is no harm in letting people read the source material because they invest in the game. You just have to make up details that aren't in there to keep the mystery and wonder going.

There are always going to be arguments, but I'd much rather have an informed argument. My friend wasn't a bad guy. We were all 16. I became a better DM and he became a better player. There have always been player/DM differences of opinion, but rather than try to enforce your throne, try sharing a little of the power.

 

[Hussar]

Do you know how annoying it is to have someone sit in front of a laptop, running calculations, and using those to not participate? How about having them calculate CR after every encounter and then annouce to everyone how much XP they just received?

Now, I no longer game with the guy, but the first time he started handing out XP, I almost strangled him. Of course, after that one particular encounter, I allowed everyone to keep the XP that he called out, except him. He got to take that as a negative number.

Now, I don't think anyone here is going to say that there are no bad players. That's certainly true that bad players exist. Then again, the point of this thread is, are players being empowered by the rules? Or, at least that's what I thought the point was.

Now, there's nothing in the RAW that supports what this player is doing. The xp tables include lots of fudge factor. The fact that the player doesn't know the CR means that his actions are not supported by the RAW. I would also point out that doing the same thing in any other edition would be equally simple. Open up the MM and call out the number. It would actually be more accurate since xp for kills doesn't change. This is a case of a bad player, not a case of the rules supporting bad players.

As for calculating the DC's, again, he doesn't have access to all the information, therefore, any calculation he makes is an estimate at best. To me, that's actually fairly realistic. If I'm a skilled person at doing X, then I probably have a pretty good idea whether or not I can do something or not. If I'm a gymnast, I should know if I can do a backflip or not. If I have X ranks in tumble, I probably have a pretty good idea how hard it is to do something. Now, if I try to say that my estimate should be taken as fact, regardless of what the DM says, then I should be smacked. That's a bad player. But, then again, that is not supported in the RAW either. Nothing in the RAW states that the DC's cannot be changed by the DM. In fact the RAW says that the DC's CAN be changed by the DM.

It's funny, I've been collecting Dragon for the past year or so. In just about every issue, there is a new class or PrC or something for the players. And, in just about every issue, there is a caveat that anything in the magazine MUST be allowed by the DM before you can take it. I would say that's a pretty telling arguement that the rules actually support the DM, rather than the player. When the books flat out state that any material must be approved by the DM, then the player who insists that rule X must be used, has no leg to stand on.

 

[Testament]

Every right has corresponding responsibilities, and every responsibility has corresponding rights. Neither rights nor responsibilities have meaning without each other. Because the DM has so many responsibilities, his rights are correspondingly larger. Because the DM has so many rights, his responsibilities are correspondingly higher.

Time and again, though, I hear the argument on these boards that "a DM with no players isn't gonna being doing much DMing" (or words to that effect), nearly always in conjunction with a statement such as yours that claims that the DM does not have the right to say "My way or the highway."

Of course the DM has that right. No one can be forced to play with people they do not wish to. You cannot force the DM to run a game. You cannot force anyone to run a game in a way you prefer. You may be able to compromise, but your two absolutely always-available choices are "Play in the game I'm running as I am running it" and "Don't play in the game I'm running as I am running it." This is not only true, it is self-evident.

Sure, if the DM is a dink and runs "Dink way or the highway" games, he's going to spend a lot of time at an empty table. I've said this (or things like it) numerous times myself. The qualifier, though, is all-important.

You say, "Now, your mileage may vary, and RC and BU's mileage I know does, but last time I checked, a DM with no players isn't gonna being doing much DMing."

I say, "The twin philosophies stated above, combined with not being a dink, are why our mileage varies."

Well, RC gets quoted because he posted second, but this is adressed to BU and RC.

I'm getting the distinct impression that we're functionally saying the same thing in two different languages. Or more accurately, two different philosophies that lead to the same destination.

At the end of the day, the DM's still in charge, that's an immutable fact, and the position of DM CANNOT exist without that concept. Where I see us differing is that while I belive firmly in the rights of players to haev some say in the running of the game, others believe that the GM has the right of absolute authority over the direction and style of the game, as a kind of reward for their increased responsibilites. <Sweet drunken ninja jesus, that looks a lot worse in print than it is!>.

DragonLancer, Jasper, I've never advocated the PCs being the sole focuses of enjoyment in the game, but I think (and this is all opinion) that there has to be a give and take structure here. I try and work with players to maximise their enjoyment, without sacrificing my own. I still say no, on a regular basis, but only after I've looked at the situation and tried to find a way to make it work. I reiterate what I said last time, the GM's primary responsibility, the one that ultimately tramples every other one, is to ensure that everyone is having fun. In terms of the players having fun, that need not be immediate (players hate it when they're about to die, they love it when they survive by the skin of their teeth a round later as a short-burn example), but long term, everyone should be having fun. Rules arbitration, game design, all of that comes AFTER this responsiblity. That long term, for the record, can be measured in any number of ways, over the session, over multiples, over an hour, whatever, the end result needs to be fun.

Nutshell is, I'm arguing for a level of compromise, RC and BU are saying that compromise is less important. I'm arguing democracy, they're arguing belevolent dictatorship; its Locke v Hobbes all over again. That's how I'm understanding it, and both of you have the right to correct me if I'm wrong on this.

And, as I said, I'm not the only person in our group(s) who GMs, but I am the only one with too many players. I am also, oddly enough, the only one who doesn't follow a "democracy gaming" philosophy. Is it just possible that there is a correspondence between those two facts?

Correlation does not equal cause. I'm actively avoiding reading any sort of attack in that last statement too, because I personally believe that neither philosophy is intrinsically superior. I just find the absolutist style irreconcilable with my own methods. And I've also got a surplus of players.

If you're not having fun, stop doing it. Whoever puts in more work has more say.

First part, damn skippy. Second part, true to a point. And I don't think I'm gonna convince you and BU of that, and vice versa, so I'm agreeing with you guys to disagree on that count.