A DM by any other name

[Iosue]

I don't particularly care for the tone of your post, so I'll just say this. I didn't phrase the "mother may I?" situation in the "worst possible light", not did I phrase the alternative in the "nest possible light". If I did either, my example would be very, very different. I tried my best to keep the two examples neutral in tone, and I hit some points that I considered advantages and disadvantages in both. Both examples are also pretty much identical to things I have seen in actual play.

I'm going to have to disagree. In the first example, the player fails to do the cool thing he wanted to do, and in the end must resort to just "I attack." In the second example, the player does what he wants to do. This was intentional, yes? If you're demonstrating a failure of one system and the success of another, that's not exactly "neutral" is it? Nor do I see in the first example any of what I consider the strong points of the first style, or the weaknesses of the second style.

Then we have "Mother-may-I", which we both agree is demeaning and insulting. And here you have the whole style of play put into that context including "Mother may I?" and "Yes, you may" at each point. You don't see how that's condescending? How it could sound condescending, even if you don't mean it that way?

Look, my intention is not to single you out here. As you said to Scylla, I'm addressing ideas here, not people. Your post, particularly with the examples of play, simply exemplified that absolutely infuriating condescension and dismissal. I play 4e and it drives me up the wall when I see "MMORPG", "tactical skirmish game", "not D&D" and so on. But I also enjoy TSR-era D&D, so it's even more frustrating when fellow 4e fans, who know what it's like to have their whole game put down based on somebody's bad experiences and/or prejudices, go ahead and casually drop "mother-may-I", like it isn't exactly like "tactical skirmish game" or "MMORPG". Even worse, since at least those reflect actual influences on 4e, whereas "Mother-may-I" is the exact opposite of the style of play being attempted.

I have no idea how what you're saying here is related to what I was saying in the line you quoted...

I think I was pretty clear. Just as you hate having your considered criticisms and preferences summed up as "bad GM", I hate having one of my favorite playstyles, which requires a number of different not-simple factors, summed up as "mother-may-I".

Anyways, we're not "twisting" anything. We're talking about the weaknesses of that style and problems inherent to it. You may not believe it, but I've seen exchanges exactly like the example I used above with my own eyes. It has clear flaws. Those flaws need to be discussed.

It must be discussed? Why? I have no doubt that you've seen exchanges just like that. But as is often pointed out, the plural of anecdote is not data. I, myself, swear to God, had this kind of experience:

DM: Okay, so this is a skill challenge. You can use Diplomacy to do X, Athletics to do Y, Intimidate to do Z, etc. You need five successes.
Me, playing a Knight trained in Diplomacy: I have a 9 in Diplomacy, so I'll do X.
Other Players: No, no. Serena (party NPC) is a Bard, leave Diplomacy to her.
Me: Uhh, okay. I guess I'll do Y.
(We go around the table, rolling our best applicable skills.)

I don't think the above example says a damn thing about 4e, or games with tight, comprehensive rules. As far as I'm concerned, my group was misusing the system. So if you bring me stories of DMs and players not on the same page, of DMs arbitrarily denying players reasonable actions or not relying information, or of players asking DMs if they can do each and every thing, instead of utilizing their agency, I'm just going to chalk that up to not best utilizing the system. Just as I would for groups where people just stare at their character sheets and never move past their powers, just stating their powers and skills instead of adding character and flavor. If that's how a group likes to play, more power to them. (I still play and have a good time with the group mentioned above.) But if they're not having fun, I'm not going to chalk that up to the game.

With 5e on the New Horizon, it behooves us all to have good discussions on the strengths and weaknesses of different styles, the rules they promote. But we're not going to have good discussions when one side says, "tactical skirmish game" and another says, "Mother May I?"

Also, yes, you are quite correct that "Mother May I?" is a demeaning term. That term is itself the subject of this thread, though, so you can't blame me for using it in this discussion.

It's not about blame. Don't take this personal. It's the term I have an issue with, not you.

Finally, please don't use "kids game" as a pejorative. The best possible thing for this hobby is if D&D is a children's game. Nothing could be be better.

No, the best possible thing would be for D&D to be what it historically has been: a game for adults that children love to play.

Let me put it this way. We're all gamers here. I'm sure any number of us has in the past year got together with fellow adults and played an RPG, a video game, a board game, even some sports. I'd be surprised if there was even one person who got together with fellow adults to play a rousing game of "Mother May I". It's not pejorative -- it simply is a kids game; a game kids play that adults don't, unless they are playing with kids. I'm not the one intentionally using that game to demean a playstyle.

 

[Minigiant]

But isn't that the crux of the issue? Where is the game world?

Is it in the DM's imagination, and its up to the DM to make sure the players understand the parameters of what he knows to be real?

Or is it shared between all the players, with the DM and players having different layers of responsibility, and the game engine serving as the arbiter for what truly exists in the game world?

That is it pretty much.

If most of the rules are in the DM's head and the DM makes all the rulings, then the players are in the dark, they have few examples of play, and they must constantly get information on play and rules from the DM.

If most of the rules and rulings are shared, then the game evolves into heavy storytelling where the game is only limited by the group's shared image of the setting.

If most of the commonly occurring rules, ruling, and instances are written or described, then the players and the DMs have a clear understanding of what their PCs are capable of. They can guess that the fighter can lift the rock. They can guess that the cleric is the one who knows the history of the Blood War. They can guess that the rogue is the best at spotting ambushes. They can guess that the wizard would probably fail a trip attempt.

Should players be able to predict the viability, costs, probability of success of their PC's actions or should the DM tell them beforehand?

 

[Emerikol]

...stuff....

The problem is that you use 4e as a reference example of something good and I use it as a reference example of something bad.

4e is going along just fine right now and I still don't have any trouble getting groups. Never have had trouble. It's not a mystery. It does require some commitment, some creativity, and a backbone. Experience of course helps a lot.

In my eyes, the fun scale goes 1 to 10. Lets say 10 is best and 1 is worse. 4e keeps the fun right in the 4 to 6 range. Bad DMs who are still trying just bad due to inexperience are 4's and great DMs are 6's. My scale is the full 1 to 10. And while in theory I know that campaigns exist out there with 1 DM's, I don't sweat it because I have 10 campaigns. Why would I want to go down to a 6 when I have a 10.

It really is true that a game made easy enough to be DM'd by an idiot will only want to be played by idiots. (Not saying 4e is idiot level bad). But again thats the extreme example.

I know from arguing on the WOTC boards with people as well as a little here that a lot of what makes a game fun for me is stuff that the other side isn't even aware of or doesn't like. And thats fine. While I do think my campaigns are better than most and I do think 4e rules oppose fun, I don't mind if others like something different. But I will give my views on what I think is important for a fun game just like everybody else.

 

[Neonchameleon]

The problem is that you use 4e as a reference example of something good and I use it as a reference example of something bad.

4e is going along just fine right now and I still don't have any trouble getting groups. Never have had trouble. It's not a mystery. It does require some commitment, some creativity, and a backbone. Experience of course helps a lot.

In my eyes, the fun scale goes 1 to 10. Lets say 10 is best and 1 is worse. 4e keeps the fun right in the 4 to 6 range. Bad DMs who are still trying just bad due to inexperience are 4's and great DMs are 6's. My scale is the full 1 to 10. And while in theory I know that campaigns exist out there with 1 DM's, I don't sweat it because I have 10 campaigns. Why would I want to go down to a 6 when I have a 10.

First, no 4e doesn't. It just encourages the 6-8 range. I've been in a 4e campaign where I'd rate the fun at a 2 (mostly because the DM was trying to DM 1e using 4e rules - and was DMing 1e badly at that). I'd call myself an 8 as DM - i.e. at the top of the 4e range and able to handle most things (I can't do gonzo).

Second I'm amazed that anyone would call their own campaign a 10 on the fun scale. Everyone has something to learn and some ways to improve. For a DM to consider their own campaign greater than 9 is to me a vast act of hubris. Especially when you are by your own admission unable to use 4e powers to improvise. A clear problem you have with innovation and imagination as plenty of people, myself included, don't have a problem here.

 

[Ratskinner]

But isn't that the crux of the issue? Where is the game world?

Is it in the DM's imagination, and its up to the DM to make sure the players understand the parameters of what he knows to be real?

Or is it shared between all the players, with the DM and players having different layers of responsibility, and the game engine serving as the arbiter for what truly exists in the game world?

I prefer the second, and would like to see D&D be more like a story game, because story games are awesome, and not enough D&D players have been exposed to them yet.

I definitely agree about the story games. (Would've XP'd you, if I could) Just this week, I was talking with some guys after our C&Cish game and we were talking about how much "simulation" slows the game down, but how hard it was (for us) to think in other terms when designing rules. My favorite story game, Capes, totally altered the way I view Roleplaying mechanics.

From a design standpoint, I see it as a matter of rules-weight. I think 3e to some extent, and 4e to a greater extent, tried to put more emphasis on the "shared" part of "shared imagined space" by using to rules to clearly define a lot of it. I think it worked, but it also slowed down play more than I'd like. While I've seen indie games that do a fine job of it with a very slight rules structure, I'm not sure you can pull the same stunt off while keeping the mechanical cruft and detritus of previous editions of D&D mostly intact. I would love to see a version of D&D that was both rules-light, "shared"-heavy, and still felt like D&D...I just don't know if its possible.

 

[Scylla]

In other words, the player is free to attempt anything but not to determine success with autonomy. So when something improvised is initiated by the player, he/she doesn't have to ask " Mother may I?" to begin a particular course of action.

The real issue at hand isn't about having to ask permission to do anything its about getting to say, I do X, AND I get the result I was looking for regardless of circumstances that I may or may not be aware of. That is complete rubbish in any game with a participating GM.

If the rules are the sole arbiter of outcomes then there is little reason for there to be a GM at all. At that point a CRPG will serve just as well for all intents and purposes because the flexibility of human interaction has been lost.

So much goodness in so few words.

This strikes to the heart of my whole point—profound thanks ExploderWizard. I don't want to tell my players what to do. I don't want to grant them permission for their actions. But what I reject, and some players now seem to want, is the ability of the player to choose an action and automatically arrive at an rules-predetermined outcome without the possibility of DM intervention.

My honest, gut reaction is that a reasonable portion of the louder NMMI crowd over at the WotC boards are basically people who want just that—the autonomy to determine their own character's success. When that happens, the DM might as well go home.

 

[Emerikol]

Second I'm amazed that anyone would call their own campaign a 10 on the fun scale. Everyone has something to learn and some ways to improve. For a DM to consider their own campaign greater than 9 is to me a vast act of hubris. Especially when you are by your own admission unable to use 4e powers to improvise. A clear problem you have with innovation and imagination as plenty of people, myself included, don't have a problem here.

I guess I really enjoy my campaigns and I run into a lot of people who don't. I will admit though that I carefully select my players and I know my own preferences so I avoid trouble. Over time and if you run a good campaign for the players you have, you get better and your game is a lot of fun. I don't even advocate that you play different if you are having fun. I do though advocate that D&D not limit itself from the highest ranges of fun trying to avoid the 1.

You keep harping on the improvisation of 4e powers. The game does not facilitate or encourage it. If someone casts a web spell and someone wants to burn their way out of it I have to houserule it. Officially the web spell is just a difficult terrain spell. That is the kind of crap I'm talking about. I can imagine anything but do I want to fight the system every step of the way or do I want a game that already facilitates things. I prefer the latter. Doesn't mean I'm theoretically incapable of the former.

Some people like to roll and then explain what the roll meant with an imaginative description. I prefer to describe what I'm doing and then roll for success. And if I'm trying to knock an ooze prone, it's fine if the DM just says - no successful. Naturally in 4e they "encourage" you to make up a reason the ooze is prone. So I want the flavor text to mean something.

 

[Scylla]

Also I want to know precisely what powers the OP thinks that I as DM have lost in 4th ed that I had in 1st ed or have in D&D next. I can and do happily houserule actions where I need to - I just need to do it a whole lot less. I can tell the players "no" to just about anything and in my experience they will accept it.

Precisely, eh? I thought my original post was pretty clear, but to restate: I never said any DM powers were lost with 4e. And I can't yet speak about D&D-Next, because it's still in playtest. I was merely commenting on a recent "movement", primarily by a subset of 4e fans, to seemingly marginalize or limit the DM's role.
It's possible that WotC may pay more attention to the voices in their own forums than those outside (though I hope they are wise enough not to), and this NMMI business could influence the development of D&D-Next, so I find it disconcerting.

Do I think the style of DM-player interaction changed somewhat with 4e? Oh yes. I feel 4e made the overall D&D experience more metagame-ish, removed some of the mystery for players, and continues to facilitate power-gaming much as 3e did. But those are largely separate arguments from the subject of DM power. (I do feel there is some connection, in that rules/option heavy editions lead to powergaming lead to greater feeling of player authority lead to power players wanting to defy/reduce DM authority; but that's an admittedly looser theory.)

The closest I'd come to saying DM power is reduced in latter editions (not counting D&D-Next because it's too early to speak for it) is: If no rule exists for something and the DM houserules it, the DM word is the sole authority. But if a rule exists and the DM tries to houserule it, a player can now reasonably object by stating that an official rule already exists for that action/situation.
For instance, if in 1e or 2e someone wanted to grapple a displacer beast and wrest it to the floor, I could houserule that and we're done. (If any players objected to my proposed houserule I would of course hear them out and perhaps modify based on their input.) But in 3e, grappling rules, however convoluted, already exist. It's a lot harder for a DM to assert their house system over an existing rule—in fact, I'd feel obligated to discuss swapping in a simpler grappling system before the campaign started, rather than risk a debate about my system vs Monte's system in the middle of play. It's easier to paint on a blank canvas than to paint over an existing picture.

In fact I'd go so far as to say that as DM I have a lot more freedom in 4th ed than I do in any other edition of D&D. For a simple reason - I have all the power I had in pre-3E, but I also have the power relax, sit back and let the PCs plan unfurl with only a few light touches. I am not being compelled to make things up every time the PCs want to do something cool.

I respect that that is your experience. Sitting back and watching things unfurl without being involved doesn't sound like an exercise in DM power to me, but I suppose having the freedom to do nothing is a type of freedom.
For me, houseruling is fun. Again, I probably houserule like 1 - 5% of actions proposed. It's not a common thing. But I enjoy it when it comes up. Now maybe you find having to houserule annoying and prefer other aspects of DMing, which is fair enough.

The other day I saw a post on the WotC board where a guy basically said, "If there aren't very specific climbing rules, the DM might be forced to [gasp!] make up climbing modifiers based on the surface being climbed!" And my first thought was, "Yes, it's called being a DM. If you're not comfortable making houserules or judgements on the fly, be a player instead." (First edition actually has climbing surface modifiers listed in the DMG, but that's a moot point.)

 

[TwoSix]

My honest, gut reaction is that a reasonable portion of the louder NMMI crowd over at the WotC boards are basically people who want just that—the autonomy to determine their own character's success. When that happens, the DM might as well go home.

That's an excellent summation of one of the core issues. Yes, as a player, I do want that autonomy. I still think the DM is necessary to play the antagonists, and to adjudicate the player's results into the game's fiction.

 

[Emerikol]

That's an excellent summation of one of the core issues. Yes, as a player, I do want that autonomy. I still think the DM is necessary to play the antagonists, and to adjudicate the player's results into the game's fiction.

Well at least you admit to it.