A DM by any other name

[Scylla]

Advice, guidelines, and modular optional rules is the way to go.

With these, the players and DMs have a starting point for expectation and discussion. That is why i love the design goal of 5e.

I can only hope it come out as it said it would.

On this we can agree, my friend.

And your sig line keeps making me laugh and lose my (easily derailed) train of thought.

 

[TwinBahamut]

The thing that strikes me about these two examples in that in both preferred instances, the DM isn't doing anything, excepts perhaps standing aside seemingly subservient as the players do as they please. (And please don't read this wrong, in my own games I allow player actions about 99.5% of the time without debate, and when I do take issue with a proposed action my players rarely if ever disagree with my rulings. I abhor DM tyrants.)

In Twinbahamut's preferred example, the DM says nothing at all. There's no interaction. I actually prefer the first exchange, because its just that—a true exchange between players and DM. And as Libramarian mentioned, I don't perceive the DM condescension that other folks might. I view it as an objective report—like a spotter giving the sniper the lay of the land so he can take action. The sniper doesn't resent his spotter, he values him as a trusted source of information. And ultimately that what it's about—mutual trust between player and DM. The DM isn't granting permission, he is relating what the character sees because the player cannot actually see through his character's eyes.

Minigiant's example seems no better to me. Here the DM merely reports the obvious and takes no real part in play, to the point of being unnecessary. (Does a player who rolled a one need the DM, however poetically, to tell him he missed?)

In these examples the DM seems like the player's manservant—someone who sets the table and then scurries out of the way while the players gorge themselves. I'd rather join them at the table as their host and share in the repast. Or put another way, these examples make it seem—to me—that the DM is more a sportscaster, merely reporting the action after it happens. But the DM is more; to continue the analogy, the DM is the other team, the field, the ball, the wind and weather, the cheerleaders, and the crowd.

I can't really agree with how you characterize the DM/Player relationship in my examples. I think you're adding things that really are not there.

Keep in mind that my examples describe an extremely small slice of the general D&D action. In fact, my examples refer directly to the phase in which a player is determining what their character does and how their character acts. In my opinion, this is a place where it is perfectly fine for the DM to take a step back. The DM has already created the setting and situation, has had opposing forces make their moves, and has set the tone for the entire event. The DM has done plenty, and at that point pretty much anything the player does will cause interaction between the two and significant DM involvement.

We are not talking about taking away the DM's power to do the most important elements of what the DM must do; we are discussing the ability of the DM to intervene and control a PC's actions. Basically, we are talking about how much the DM should have the ability to control what the players can do and how the players can react to a situation. From the opposite perspective from the DM's, this is about the player's freedom to determine how their own character works and what their own character can do. This is about the DM being able to trust the player's opinions and perspective and accept that, even if there are differences, the player knows best on what actions are appropriate or not. This is about whether the DM should be the players' coach in addition to being the other team and the referee.

Overall, I think the players should be the final authority for their own characters, rather than the DM.

Anyways, there really at least three different ways I can think of that this situation could be approached.

1) The DM arbitrates player actions. The DM controls all aspects of the situation, and any action by a PC requires either information from the DM or explicit permission by the DM. This need is generally implicit in the rules rather than explicit, but it is still there. This is what I would call the old-school approach that is often derided as "Mother May I?".

2) The rules arbitrate player actions. The situation is formally controlled by the rules whenever possible, with only unusual situations falling under DM control. This kind of game tends to use things like a battle grid, strong and complete rules, and strongly codified player abilities. This is the 4E-style approach that is often derided as "boardgamey" or "videogamey".

3) The players arbitrate player actions. The situation is equally controlled by everyone at the table, and everyone has a clear ability to create elements of the setting and situation to suit their needs. Players don't need to ask the DM if a chandelier exists because they are free to write the chandelier into the setting themselves. This is more the indie RPG approach that is derided as a "storygame, not a real RPG".

I suppose all three are equally valid, but they feature incredibly different and often incompatible playstyles that require very different rules. Personally, I'm fine with 2 and would be interested in 3, but would prefer to avoid 1. This really is a matter of taste, not absolute superiority, so I'm not sure I could be convinced to like 1.

 

[Minigiant]

I think this is fairly stated, to a point. Certainly there is a chance that player expectations may clash with DM judgement. But long experience has shown me, and perhaps I'm lucky, that with a good DM the players and DM very soon learn to mesh their expectations; the DM learns what the players desire out of play and the players get a feel for the DM's style.

Of course if you have a bad DM, that won't work. But if your DM is bad it's them to blame and not the subject of DM freedom. To use your example, if the players wished to play more superheroic and mythic characters and the DM wished for more down to earth PCs, why didn't they discuss it before playing? Your only solution for this conflict seems to be: If there's a rule for it and the player names the rule, the DM must shut up, conflict over.

Moreover, if more rules indeed eliminate DM and player clashes, why do I hear more rules lawyering and such than in the old days? Despite the many bad DMs floating around, there was no widespread complaint that the DM had too much power until now. The problem isn't a lack of rules, it's the perception of players used to rules-heavy editions that 5e is taking their power away by going more rules lite.

Such metagaming and rules quoting is sucking the soul from the game, IMHO. We're replacing interesting exchanges between DM and player with players simply reciting the recipe of powers they're using each round, and this is progress? At the end of the day, if I want a wargame there are better ones out there than D&D.

My point is that there are many things that a player and DM could disagree on. It would be difficult to discuss them all unless:

1. They spend the time discussing every common situation there is no rule for.
2. Or one gives the other the FULL arbitration power and deals with the consequences

But when there is a rule or guideline somewhere as a starting point, then the player and DM have a starting line of expectation to go from.

For example. 3.5E has rules for Feints. It is a Bluff vs Sense Motive check as a standard action that removes Dex bonus to action.

The players know that.
The DMs knows that.

So if the no Bluff having PC spams feints, the player and DM expect the PC to fail a lot. And if the High Bluff having PC spams feints, the player and DM expect the PC to succeed a lot.

And the player knows he cannot feint as a move action without a feat or DM adjudication. So if the player wishes to feint and stab witot Improved Fient, the player must ask permission and should expect to loss accuracy or damage or AC.

But without feinting rules, the DM would have to give out feinting rules ahead of time or there would be no expectations. All would be in the dark. The player would not know what would happen if you feint, the cost nor effect. The DM would not know ow his or her feinting rules would affect the game. No one would know what skill or ability score is used ahead of time. Hundreds or variables and possible frowns. Chaos and madness of the dark unknown.

But of course everything wont get a rule or guideline. But having them for the most common of occurrences frees up game time, lowers animosity, and keeps future headaches to a minimum.

On this we can agree, my friend.

And your sig line keeps making me laugh and lose my (easily derailed) train of thought.

Truth is funny like that.

 

[Shadeydm]

The DM is in the best position to be combat referee for two reasons: one, they don't have a character so they don't have a conflict of interest; and two, their judgement ought to be the most accurate and consistent because it's their job in general to build, maintain and describe the setting. To me this sort of combat refereeing follows straightforwardly out of that. It's not out of step with the general role of the DM at all.

This a thousand times this!

 

[Shadeydm]

I view it as an objective report—like a spotter giving the sniper the lay of the land so he can take action. The sniper doesn't resent his spotter, he values him as a trusted source of information. And ultimately that what it's about—mutual trust between player and DM. The DM isn't granting permission, he is relating what the character sees because the player cannot actually see through his character's eyes.

Giving the DM a little less attitude than in some examples already given, I would offer my own example of play:

Player: So the trolls have us backed onto this ledge, eh? What lies below?
DM: Sharp stalagmites about eighty feet below, I'm afraid.
Player: Yikes. Anything else around, other ledges?
DM: (Smiling inwardly) Yes, there are several ledges to either side.
Player: Any I might reach with a great running leap?
DM: There's one to your left that's approximately 6 feet away and perhaps a foot lower than you.
Player: I'm going to make a running leap for it! (Grabs dice)
DM: Sure, give me a ________ check!

I'll take that synergy over being a sportscaster any day.

Well said!

 

[Scylla]

My point is that there are many things that a player and DM could disagree on.

You must have a lot of disagreeable players.

But when there is a rule or guideline somewhere as a starting point, then the player and DM have a starting line of expectation to go from.

This is reasonable. I just never experienced problems because of expectations. When I played 1e on a regular basis, which I did for over 10 years with a variety of groups, I don't recall anyone ever feinting. There was no feint rule in the PHB, so the players didn't do it. (Not because the DM said no, they just never asked.) Sometimes the lack of a rule is a rule in itself.
And when in doubt, common sense prevailed.

 

[Grabuto138]

Is it clear that Gygax intended the loosey-goosey MMI style of 1e/2e, or was this the unintended consequence of a bafflingly complex and inconsistent rule set?

I started playing in '82. 3e was a breath of fresh air that completely reinvented the game for me. I like 4e even better.

 

[Grabuto138]

Well said!

Why do you prefer that the DM gives you a more or less arbitrary number to roll against? If the DM simply describes the scene, and you know the target is about 5' away, then you know, based on your athletics check what it would take to make a standing jump 1 square. It is consistent across encounters. The DM can plan terrain to challenge the strengths and weaknesses of the party rather than challenging through ad hoc, arbitrary target numbers.

In the ugly old days, I would sometimes DM with blank notebook paper behind the screen. The monsters would die when the party was sufficiently challenged. I thought I was a good DM. I was really just stealing agency from the players.

Once 3e came around, players actually had something to do during the week. Character creation became a hobby, contingent on the fact that we were all going to follow the same rules.

 

[Minigiant]

You must have a lot of disagreeable players.

No. But during my years of play, I've witnessed many DM/player arguments and DMs and players who didn't trust each other.

This is reasonable. I just never experienced problems because of expectations. When I played 1e on a regular basis, which I did for over 10 years with a variety of groups, I don't recall anyone ever feinting. There was no feint rule in the PHB, so the players didn't do it. (Not because the DM said no, they just never asked.) Sometimes the lack of a rule is a rule in itself.
And when in doubt, common sense prevailed.

Lucky.
In my very first game of D&D, a player tried to dual wield trees as thrown weapon against an ogress.

 

[Scylla]

Basically, we are talking about how much the DM should have the ability to control what the players can do and how the players can react to a situation.

As a DM, I never control what the players do, or how they react. If a player wants to leap a 200-foot gap, they are welcome to try. I supply the players info and they decide their actions. What I will do is assign odds and create spot rules to cover what the rules don't cover. (Something that proved a lot faster than the endless "look it up in the book" in the 3e days.) There's a world of difference in creating a mechanic or assigning odds versus controlling what a PC does.

I suppose I occasionally "control" a PC's action by making a task so difficult as to be almost impossible. If a player wanted to leap the aforementioned 200-foot gap, my brain tells me that the real life broad jump record is something like 30 feet, so they'd have a hard time of it. So I might assign a miniscule chance of success (something the player would usually be warned about). But my players would use common sense and it's doubtful the topic of jumping such a span without magical aid would come up in the first place.

Anyways, there really at least three different ways I can think of that this situation could be approached.

1) The DM arbitrates player actions. The DM controls all aspects of the situation, and any action by a PC requires either information from the DM or explicit permission by the DM. This need is generally implicit in the rules rather than explicit, but it is still there. This is what I would call the old-school approach that is often derided as "Mother May I?".

2) The rules arbitrate player actions. The situation is formally controlled by the rules whenever possible, with only unusual situations falling under DM control. This kind of game tends to use things like a battle grid, strong and complete rules, and strongly codified player abilities. This is the 4E-style approach that is often derided as "boardgamey" or "videogamey".

3) The players arbitrate player actions. The situation is equally controlled by everyone at the table, and everyone has a clear ability to create elements of the setting and situation to suit their needs. Players don't need to ask the DM if a chandelier exists because they are free to write the chandelier into the setting themselves. This is more the indie RPG approach that is derided as a "storygame, not a real RPG".

This is well stated. But I never find play as absolute or rigid as this, but rather a mix of 1 and 2. As DM, playing 1e or 2e, I would not say that "any action by a PC requires either information from the DM or explicit permission by the DM." Not by a long shot. Ninety to 95% of the time the players take routine actions, attacking, spellcasting, etc., based on my initial description. My experience would probably be most accurately described by number 2 above, even when I was playing early editions.

For instance, I carefully describe a cave. The players typically ask a few questions about the finer details—something that happens in my 4e campaign too—and then they state what they wish to do. If the cleric wants to cast a Light spell, and the mage wants to sit down and examine the scroll found in the last cave, and the fighter wants to rest and polish his armor, they can do that without expecting permission or much further detail from me (unless unexpected visitors show up). If troglodytes suddenly arrive, everyone rolls initiative and the fighter can run to the attack, the mage cast Sleep, etc., again without explicit permission or detail being required.

The DM caveat (or whatever you want to call it) tends to show up in those odder circumstances, such as the fighter wanting to throw his sword so it slices through a chandelier rope or the thief wants to dangle from a rope and disarm a trap one-handed.

In the end I don't think our approaches are all that different in practice. I think what I'd like to see preserved/restored in future game editions is the traditional style of DM-player interaction.

1e style:
DM: You've entered a dusty chamber with a vaulted ceiling... (yada yada)
Player: I'm going to look around for anything of value.
DM: Whereabouts are you searching?
Player: I'll check the room corners, brushing away dust as needed.
DM: Nothing there but some old cobwebs, and a few tiny, yellowed bones in the northeast corner—possibly the remains of a rat.
Player: How about higher up? I look up at the ceiling beams.
DM: Roll percentile dice for me.
[Player rolls.] Player: I got a 87.
DM: You discover an old coffer tucked away on rafter.

4e style:
DM: You've entered a dusty chamber with a vaulted ceiling... (yada yada)
Player: I'll make a Perception check. [Rolls die.] I got a 24, which includes my racial bonus and Soaring Eagle Eye utility power.
DM: You discover an old coffer tucked away on rafter.

Now the second example certainly cuts to the chase quicker. But to me, it's devoid of soul or feeling; comparing the two is like putting poetry next to a car repair manual. Yet the latter approach seems to be what some people are advocating—"Rules exist for passive and active Perception, so let me call the skill and make my roll, and let's not bother with the details."