TwoSix
Everyone's literal second-favorite poster
Yes, sort of like how I also admit to giving money to charity and helping old ladies across the street.
A DM by any other name
- Thread starter Scylla
- Start date
Yes, sort of like how I also admit to giving money to charity and helping old ladies across the street.
ExploderWizard
Hero
Thats what I don't want as a player. Too much contol outside of my own character and I no longer feel like I'm playing an adventurer in a fictional world. It feels more like playing a writer, script editing a story about an adventurer in a fantasy world.
As a DM, being there to keep notes and roll for the monsters doesn't sound very fun.
Grabuto138
First Post
I freely admit to agreeing with him. And I'll take it a step further. The DM should not have full control over the results of a player's actions. The rules matter. I want my character creation decisions to have consequence.
Also, the players should be able to effect the game world. If the Dm introduces a new NPC, an old soldier from the last war, and my character says "I heard about you. My uncle served with you in the war." the DM should go with it so long as it fits with my character and can be adapted into his narrative.
Not only should the DM be constrained when making decisions in encounters, the players should be empowered when making narrative decisions.
Iosue
Legend
I have to disagree with Exploder Wizard and Scylla. I think they are taking the argument too far.
IMO, the goals of say, Rule of DM players and Rule of Rules players are the same. They want to envision what their characters might do and then execute it. Neither necessarily wants to control success. It's a question of process, not results.
Rule of DM players (in general) desire a certain freeform process that, for them, allows them to innovate and improvise, be it as player or DM. They don't want to spend a lot of time on system/rule mastery.
Rule of Rules (in general) players desire a consistent, stable process that, for them, allows them to make informed action decisions without a lot of intangible variability.
Since I harped on TwinBahamut's examples, it's only fair to provide my own:
Rule of DM
DM: This huge, 7 1/2 foot ogre is standing just inside the door 30 feet away, swinging his club.
Player: I shoot across the room and hurl myself on his back.
DM (improvising): Okay, roll under your Dex score.
Player: 12.
DM: Okay, you're hanging on his back. You hamper his movement, and he's trying to swipe you off. (DM decides the ogre gets -2 to attack rolls.)
Rule of Rules
DM: You see it's an ogre.
Player (surveys minis on map, mentally counts squares): He's close enough. I run over and jump on his back, hitting him with the pommel of my sword and grabbing around his neck. Stranglehold: Encounter, vs. AC, 2d8+20 damage, and he's Dazed until the end of my next turn.
DM: Okay. Make your roll. (Everyone knows that Dazed means the ogre only gets one action, can't take immediate or opportunity actions, grants CA, and can't flank.)
Player: 12, +20 is 32. Damage is (rolls)...35.
DM: You've banged him up and he's Dazed. (Puts a little Dazed keyring on the ogre mini.)
It's the same basic thing: player thinks what they want to do, says it, and rolls to succeed. The difference is the process. In the first example the DM makes the call on what the player needs to roll, and what the effects of success are. In the second, everything has already been worked out, so the DM merely makes sure the player isn't misusing the rule, and notes the damage and condition of the monster.
For some folks, the quick and easy way of the former keeps them in the game. They don't need to know what effects their grab on the ogre will specifically do. That's one aspect of the fun. For other folks, that uncertainty is a hobgoblin of the mind, hampering their enjoyment.
For some folks, the codified and transparent workings of the game keep them in the game. It helps them think of plans and tactics down the line. Another player realizes they can play off of the ogre's new condition. There's no uncertainty about how things work; only in whether it will work or not. For other players, the extra time taken to make clear a power not everyone's familiar with takes them out of the game, or they feel constrained from trying improvise, because everything's so clearly codified.
Some folks are like me, and feel comfortable in either situation.
IMO, the goals of say, Rule of DM players and Rule of Rules players are the same. They want to envision what their characters might do and then execute it. Neither necessarily wants to control success. It's a question of process, not results.
Rule of DM players (in general) desire a certain freeform process that, for them, allows them to innovate and improvise, be it as player or DM. They don't want to spend a lot of time on system/rule mastery.
Rule of Rules (in general) players desire a consistent, stable process that, for them, allows them to make informed action decisions without a lot of intangible variability.
Since I harped on TwinBahamut's examples, it's only fair to provide my own:
Rule of DM
DM: This huge, 7 1/2 foot ogre is standing just inside the door 30 feet away, swinging his club.
Player: I shoot across the room and hurl myself on his back.
DM (improvising): Okay, roll under your Dex score.
Player: 12.
DM: Okay, you're hanging on his back. You hamper his movement, and he's trying to swipe you off. (DM decides the ogre gets -2 to attack rolls.)
Rule of Rules
DM: You see it's an ogre.
Player (surveys minis on map, mentally counts squares): He's close enough. I run over and jump on his back, hitting him with the pommel of my sword and grabbing around his neck. Stranglehold: Encounter, vs. AC, 2d8+20 damage, and he's Dazed until the end of my next turn.
DM: Okay. Make your roll. (Everyone knows that Dazed means the ogre only gets one action, can't take immediate or opportunity actions, grants CA, and can't flank.)
Player: 12, +20 is 32. Damage is (rolls)...35.
DM: You've banged him up and he's Dazed. (Puts a little Dazed keyring on the ogre mini.)
It's the same basic thing: player thinks what they want to do, says it, and rolls to succeed. The difference is the process. In the first example the DM makes the call on what the player needs to roll, and what the effects of success are. In the second, everything has already been worked out, so the DM merely makes sure the player isn't misusing the rule, and notes the damage and condition of the monster.
For some folks, the quick and easy way of the former keeps them in the game. They don't need to know what effects their grab on the ogre will specifically do. That's one aspect of the fun. For other folks, that uncertainty is a hobgoblin of the mind, hampering their enjoyment.
For some folks, the codified and transparent workings of the game keep them in the game. It helps them think of plans and tactics down the line. Another player realizes they can play off of the ogre's new condition. There's no uncertainty about how things work; only in whether it will work or not. For other players, the extra time taken to make clear a power not everyone's familiar with takes them out of the game, or they feel constrained from trying improvise, because everything's so clearly codified.
Some folks are like me, and feel comfortable in either situation.
Last edited:
ExploderWizard
Hero
When its time to write a story together heck yeah.
Actual play isn't a narrative, its actual play. Actual play is happening now, in the moment. If you are narrating an adventure you aren't participating in it.
Emerikol
Legend
As a DM I create a consistent world. The player's characters then live in THAT world. Not one of their own making. Of course a DM that makes arbitrary decisions isn't a good DM but the DM is the final word. And the DM does have to make decisions occasionally. And no not everything has to be written down as a rule. Common sense can be used when rules are unavailable. And yes players do need to learn their DMs somewhat.
That just seems crazy to me. Unless I as the DM actually wanted such a connection to exist (and if I did I would actually check with you first before making such and in game proclaimation). How do you know this NPC is really who he claims to be and not another soldier or creature or assasin or spy etc etc. Now as the DM I have pull you aside and say um dude thats a problem your uncle didn't know him. Now I have the tell the group you're mistaken and have effectivle flagged to the entire group that something is up with this guy.
Furthermore where does the madness stop can you suddenly proclaim you're are the nephew of the mayor since the party is headed to meet him to talk about a job? Can you spontaniously decide you are the brother of the archmage who rules the local magic guild when you want to buy components or apply for membership?
No thanks glad it works for your group though...
TwoSix
Everyone's literal second-favorite poster
If I'm sitting around the table eating my Doritos and drinking the Dew, I daresay I'm not "participating" in the adventure, either, immersion be darned.
And in the moment, I'm making decisions to shape a story that stars my main character. I'm not pretending to "be" my character, although I try not to make decisions originating from him that wouldn't make sense for him to make based on the knowledge he has.
I have done games where I've been more immersed, but I've had better luck with that in White Wolf games.
ExploderWizard
Hero
What some refer to as "intangible variability" can actually be very tangible as it relates to the situation in the fictional space shared in the participants' imaginations.
Put another way, what is happening in the game world is more important than wahat is happening on page XX of rulebook Y. This doesn't mean all rules are discarded, it means they are adapted to mesh with events they are governing instead of the other way around.
TwoSix
Everyone's literal second-favorite poster
That's where the creativity comes in. First of all, how do you know that the player's uncle didn't know him? If the guy says "My name's Sir Johan Tumblebritches, and I served in the Army of the Light during the Great Crusade against the Orcs," have you really defined every interaction that the NPC has ever had?
Secondly, just because the player has made the declaration that his uncle knew Johan Tumblebritches, it's not like you as the DM can't easily know that this person is only pretending to be "Johan Tumblebritches."
And if the person was just a random NPC that the player says he knew, congratulations. He's just given a hook you didn't have to think of yourself, AND the player has some investment in it.
Most narrative games have rules to determine just how far the player's rights to make determinations go. Contrast a typical FATE game like Dresden Files versus, say, Fiasco.
