A DM by any other name

[JamesonCourage]

Well, exactly this sort of playstyle was discussed in the 4e DMG2, so it's certainly valid as a topic of interest as to its inclusion.

But it's not a mechanical issue, is it? I can see the argument over things like dailies using this concept, but not the on-the-fly "my uncle served with this guy" that D&D has never codified (thus making it just a playstyle thing)? I'm just missing the point of the discussion, which is why I asked if it's basically just a curiosity thing. As always, play what you like

 

[ForeverSlayer]

What is with this "Mother May I" crap anyway?

I don't want a binary version of D&D that works only one way. I want to be able to improvise my actions at times but I know that the DM does have a say so as to whether what I am asking to do is legitimate.

If something is not covered in the rules then you don't get to decide if you can do it or not, that's the job of the DM. Sometimes what someone wants to do is a bit out there, or just doesn't make any sense.

 

[Scylla]

Agreed, ForeverSlayer (and thanks for bringing this thread back on point).

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.

There's nothing here I disagree with. Sometimes you see something that's houseruled so often that it should be ruled, period. Example from 1e: Low M-U hit points. Everyone I knew thought starting a mage with 1 hp at 1st level was ridiculous, and most DMs & players gave max. points at 1st, or double the roll, or whatever.

I have no issue with rules. I have no issue with standardization. But rules in practice have consequences and side effects.

For example: For years I yearned for interesting fighter actions. (To the point that in my 20s I wrote up my own RPG and gave fighters a choice of "maneuvers" at each level—if you saw that game today, you'd see a frightening similarity to 4e.) In 4e I finally got what I wanted ... and combats slowed to a crawl. Adding the extra combat options had the side effect (along with inflated monster HPs and other things) of slowing combat. Rules are not bad things, but adding so many rules and options to D&D has had overall side effects, not all good.

I believe an overall side effect of abundant rules—over abundant at times—and endless PC combos has been a growth of metagaming and, for some, power gaming and sense of player entitlement. Not all players, of course, but a subset. Now these folks see D&D-Next as a lighter system with fewer options, and they dismay. Why? No more killer builds.
It's gamer nature to tinker with rules, and if you give folks more character options, they will play with them, combine them, etc. This isn't a bad thing usually, and character building can be great fun. But options can also be abused* and can lead to imbalance at the game table.

*The (mis)use of the spiked chain and endless-Trip combos in 3e are two easy examples.

 

[ForeverSlayer]

In every version of D&D we always started with max HP and at every level.

 

[Shadeydm]

Well, I meant an actual game like Spirit of the Century, or Dresden Files, or Burning Wheel, but I think you answered my question indirectly.

Sure but I don't think any of these games would ever be confused with D&D which I believe was the game central to the discussion.
I am not trying to say that round robin improv theatre is an invalid playstyle after 30 years if nothing else I've learned there is no limit to the range of playstyles that can be supported to some extent by D&D. But the idea that the characters are on the fly changing the backgrounds and associations of NPCs is not something I would accept at the gaming table nor would I ever do that to a DM. Work it out by email or phone between sessions sure but in the middle of the game seems downright disrespectful.

 

[Iosue]

Sometimes what someone wants to do is a bit out there, or just doesn't make any sense.

And that's the core issue. D&D is an improvisational game, and the absolute worse thing you can do in improv is deny someone their improvisation. It absolutely sucks in a game when you say something you think is a good, feasible idea, and it gets summarily shut down. Rule by DM works best when the players and DM are in sympatico. The players are hardly ever going to suggest something way out there, because they know the tenor of the group and the DM. When DMs and players have different expectations, or even when it's different players with different expectations, Rule of DM doesn't always work so smoothly.

Rule of Rules helps alleviate this. The Rules, with a bit of tweaking by the group, set the agreed expectations of the whole group. Player ideas are hardly ever denied because there's not much need. Some groups need that codification to get in sympatico.

 

[Iosue]

But the idea that the characters are on the fly changing the backgrounds and associations of NPCs is not something I would accept at the gaming table nor would I ever do that to a DM. Work it out by email or phone between sessions sure but in the middle of the game seems downright disrespectful.

If the DM's game for it, it can be simply awesome and welcomed, rather than disrespectful. And there are degrees to this as well. In a BECM play-by-email I ran, I told players that they could flesh out the world by describing their hometowns and regions. When the game started, I described the docks area of a town on a river, in only moderate detail, but mentioned that one player was supervising the building of a new storehouse. When the dragon attack came, one player said, "I run across the bridge to the old storehouse and hide in there." I never specifically mentioned an old storehouse, nor a bridge. But the fact that there was a new storehouse under construction certainly suggested an old one still standing, and, why a bridge and a dragon attack suggested all sorts of probabilities. I totally allowed it and ran with it.

 

[Shadeydm]

That's great, I'm not trying to say anyone is doing it wrong or having wrongbadfun. There are a million ways to play the game and if it works for your group cool.

 

[ForeverSlayer]

And that's the core issue. D&D is an improvisational game, and the absolute worse thing you can do in improv is deny someone their improvisation. It absolutely sucks in a game when you say something you think is a good, feasible idea, and it gets summarily shut down. Rule by DM works best when the players and DM are in sympatico. The players are hardly ever going to suggest something way out there, because they know the tenor of the group and the DM. When DMs and players have different expectations, or even when it's different players with different expectations, Rule of DM doesn't always work so smoothly.

Rule of Rules helps alleviate this. The Rules, with a bit of tweaking by the group, set the agreed expectations of the whole group. Player ideas are hardly ever denied because there's not much need. Some groups need that codification to get in sympatico.

But no where does it say your idea is guaranteed to be allowed. Not sure where on earth you get the notion that "all" improvisations are supposed to be allowed, this actually boggles my mind. If you improvise something ridiculous why should a DM allow it

I guess you're the same type of person that believe if a person spends days writing their character's background that they should receive a nice portion of "plot armor" just because they spent that much time on it.

 

[ForeverSlayer]

That's great, I'm not trying to say anyone is doing it wrong or having wrongbadfun. There are a million ways to play the game and if it works for your group cool.

I will say this.

If you always tell your people yes then that's fine but don't act like it's supposed to be the norm with everyone else.

Not you in particular Shade, I was just referencing your post and sending the "you" out to anyone my post falls under.

The dice don't always give you permission so why should the DM?