Do you not see the conflict here? On the one hand you seem to be saying its ok that players randomly and spontaniously decided to announce that he already knew or knew of a new npc. Then you cite that games have rules to determine just how far it can go as if 4E will draw a line a line and say no you don't know the mayor after the player spontaniously decides his character does. This sort of spontanious player world building just strikes me as bizaare. Its like you want the DM to play MMI lol. I'd be like if you want to build the world you get behind the screen.
A DM by any other name
- Thread starter Scylla
- Start date
Do you not see the conflict here? On the one hand you seem to be saying its ok that players randomly and spontaniously decided to announce that he already knew or knew of a new npc. Then you cite that games have rules to determine just how far it can go as if 4E will draw a line a line and say no you don't know the mayor after the player spontaniously decides his character does. This sort of spontanious player world building just strikes me as bizaare. Its like you want the DM to play MMI lol. I'd be like if you want to build the world you get behind the screen.
ComradeGnull
First Post
Not at all. I don't play fighters, or really care what they do. I am simply
saying that spells in editions 0-3 worked in largely the same way that powers work in 4e. There are written descriptions of when the spell can be cast, under what circumstances, what rolls are required, and what effect happens. If the prereqs are met and the roll succeeds, the effect happens. Yes the DM can by fiat say 'well, your spell doesn't work the way you want for a reason I am explaining now', but the same thing is true of a 4e power. In both cases, the rules don't say 'the DM can override the written effect of a spell or power'- it's an assumption built into the nature of an RPG that uses a DM.
And pretty much all of the above still requires adjudication in more rules-heavy editions. In some cases spells got added guidelines for how to adjudicate, and in other things complex spells went away. That more than anything may have affected how play works out- spells with complex or unpredictable effects are fewer and farer between in 4e. But rituals still can include some of those same complications, and DM's can always add additional magic or rituals that require those kind of calls.
This is essentially saying that the later editions took some of the spotlight away from the DM and spell casters and gave it to non-caster players- which seems perfectly fair. Rituals can still have scrying-type effects that are unreliable and require adjudication if you want them to.
Again: some people want to improvise story, and some people want to improvise action resolution. Why is one crazier than the other? If you've ever done improv acting or comedy, one of the fundamental rules is the 'yes, but' rule- if someone says 'look a bus', you don't say 'that isn't a bus, you're crazy!'- that kills the momentum of the scene and turns into a game of just contradicting eachother. "Yes, but"- (which I've specifically seen mentioned in some game mastering guides) means that if a player makes a suggestion that doesn't break the game, you allow it but add complications to it that ensure that it isn't abused.
So in the example above, the player says 'I know you, my uncle served with you in the war'. The army officer says 'You mean Lt. Bill- the officer I had shot for cowardice?!' Now you've built onto the story and created additional hooks. Rather than just allowing the player to create an advantage for themselves, you've created an opportunity to work for an advantage, or to take the story in a new direction.
It is slightly more complicated way to create plot. Just as adjudicating actions on the spot is a slightly more complicated way to resolve tasks. In each case, the DM is just sharing a little control with the players to make the game more collaborative.
What you have now described with Lt. Bill sounds like you want the DM to wrestle for control of the game world with the PCs. I say if you want to worldbuild or rewrite the adventure sit behind the screen.
TwoSix
Everyone's literal second-favorite poster
I'll be honest, it sounds like you haven't tried them, because you seem honestly puzzled by how a narrative game works.
Haven't tried what inventing stuff about the DMs NPCs and making wild assumptions about them without knowing what role they are intended to play in the adventure/campaign? Um no i have more respect for the work the DM puts into his game than that.
Emerikol
Legend
I think we are all just saying we don't want D&D to become a narrative game. I am understanding what your saying I just don't want it or like it. It's not fun to me. You may feel differently.
ComradeGnull
First Post
You're completely misunderstanding the intent and how this works in practice. It isn't about trying to frustrate the DM on the fly, it is about the DM and the players being in agreement before hand that they are going to take a more flexible approach to the narrative structure of the game.
Just like deciding to use DM arbitration rather than formal rules is a mutual decision between players and the DM to take a more flexible approach to resolving how actions play out.
'Become' a narrative game? Any of the examples that have been given so far work perfectly well in the game as it exists right now. I haven't seen anyone asking for rule changes in this thread to make D&D play like some other, more narrative structured game. Just pointing out that the decision to take a flexible approach to narrative structure is roughly equivalent to taking a flexible approach to resolving actions in terms of how it impacts the game, provided everyone is on the same page.
Here's how I see it:
1) I don't care if WotC publishes structured narratives (adventures, settings, etc.), because I can always either ignore them or make my own modifications.
2) I would like WotC to publish detailed rules so that I have them available to use if I need them.
3) If you play by the published rules for a system by 4e, it moves some decision making into the hands of players, in the same way that spells move some decision making into the hands of wizards.
3) I'm currently trying to understand why people who don't want published rules can't ignore them- again, talking primarily about things like resolving tasks in combat, which is where 90% of the rubber hits the road in this discussion.
Rolling back a bit....
If you understand why most rules are created...
you'll understand why more rules were added as the later editions came along.
The main reasons most rules are added to any game to add a ruling for a common occurrence that all parties should agree with.
It the occurrence is common enough, someone or something will have to make the ruling eventually.
If a ruling is made, the ruling should be good and trusted.
So it comes down to where do the player think the rules should come from... the DM or the system.
The players will always choose the system unless they trust and are in sync with the DM.
If you understand why most rules are created...
you'll understand why more rules were added as the later editions came along.
The main reasons most rules are added to any game to add a ruling for a common occurrence that all parties should agree with.
It the occurrence is common enough, someone or something will have to make the ruling eventually.
If a ruling is made, the ruling should be good and trusted.
So it comes down to where do the player think the rules should come from... the DM or the system.
The players will always choose the system unless they trust and are in sync with the DM.
Oh no you were quite clear with your example. I get it and as i said in an earlier post I'm glad it works for your group.
Wrong, in Dungeons and Dragons the DM has always been the Arbiter/Judge/Ref. Its the game not a house rule or something I just made up, its not a mutual decision (at least not beyond your ability to get up and leave if you don't want to play).
To put it another way.
The rules are the building materials, the DM is the Architect/Builder, the players get to live in the house, play in the yard, and pick a bedroom to decorate.
Neonchameleon
Legend
If there's any wrestling to be done the DM wins. Every time. But if there's no need to wrestle, letting the PCs add touches to the gameworld increases player involvement and investiture, and keeps the scene moving. If the player is managing to rewrite rather than add colour to the adventure, you can tell them no. Or you can work it in.
