A DM by any other name

[Emerikol]

Why? A group of friends get together and play a collaborative game. The Dm runs the world and the players live in it. At certain decision points the DM will make assumptions about my character background. At other decision points I will make assumptions about my character background. We are all friends; we all want to play in a good campaign; we all want to have fun; we are all working towards the same goal. So we work together and create pretty awesome campaigns, game worlds, role playing sessions and, well, we just kind of play Dungeons and Dragons.

I guess the short answer is they wouldn't be fun and they wouldn't be awesome for me. Remember I said if it works for you then do it. Just not for me. I've played in games where the DM mostly made it up. I didn't last past the first session.

Edit: I was probably too obtuse in my response. Even if you were a full-time Dm, paid by the hour, you could not fill out all the details of an entire world. Worlds are big and complex. Pleyers are a great resource. Also, the only thing that matters in the game world are the aspects that effect the players. Everything else is masturbation. Why not let the players become actively engaged in the world? Why not let them help?

Yes it would take a world to perfectly model a world. I'm not trying to perfectly model one. I do use abstraction. I detail out the nations and rulers. I detail out the regional cultures along with relevant racial outlooks. Then in the area where the players start I detail out the town/city and surrounding area. As the campaign progresses they are of course going to go to other areas. But with the abstract information I have I can extrapolate reasonable assumptions. I may not know the Sir John the Knight lived in Westover but I know that someone like Sir John the Knight does because I know Westover. So I put Sir John into the game as a new NPC when I need a knight from Westover. But after that Sir John exists and may even reappear. So as the group moves about I detail more of the world.

Gygax himself said that the campaign is more important than any player. I dont think he meant the group of people who played every thursday night when he said campaign. I believe he felt that players come and go. His campaign lived on with players coming and going for years. So his attitude was that the campaign was more important most definitely.

While I've had campaign worlds that featured more than one group, I personally like to do new worlds when I start a new campaign. I just enjoy the creative process. I might borrow bits and pieces from previous worlds if nobody ever used those parts.

 

[Scylla]

I'm kinda confused why this is even being discussed at length.

That makes two of us, brother.

It's purely a playstyle thing, and I really doubt they're going to have anything resembling "my uncle worked with you" in the base (assumed) rules.

Such a collaborative approach is interesting (if not for me), but I think we can safely assume it's neither the widespread playstayle of most nor the main playstyle they'll suggest with D&D-Next. I'm not really sure how this relates to the main topic of DM agency/power in D&D-Next, except as an example of a rare game style in which the players share some traditional DM duties.

 

[Steely_Dan]

DMing is a skill

No, it is not.

 

[Patryn of Elvenshae]

No, it is not.

... are you ... are you actually serious?

 

[ExploderWizard]

No, it is not.

Please elaborate. I can run a better game now than I could 32 years ago when I first started. The reason for this is learning through doing.

I would a agree that a book or a heavier set of rules can't make someone a better DM, but that doesn't make it something that cannot be learned.

 

[Iosue]

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

You're missing the point. It's not that ideas are guaranteed to be allowed, it's not that all improvisations are allowed. It's that, as an improvisational game, D&D is inherently fun when one's improvisations are accepted, and inherently not fun when an idea is rejected. So the goal isn't to allow any idea, but to maximize fun by creating a situation where the ideas that are given are the ones that will be accepted. This can be done anywhere along a spectrum total DM freedom to adjudicate in a manner he knows his group will like (with the group in sync and having a good feel for what is acceptable), to hard and fast rules that everyone agrees to follow, and all points in between.

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.

I would suggest not trying to guess what kind of type people are, because frankly you suck at it.

 

[Steely_Dan]

... are you ... are you actually serious?

As a heart-attack.

 

[Steely_Dan]

Please elaborate. I can run a better game now than I could 32 years ago when I first started. The reason for this is learning through doing.

Oh, you can hone, but you gotta have the thing.

Like musicians (some things can't be taught).

 

[Minigiant]

Oh, you can hone, but you gotta have the thing.

Like musicians (some things can't be taught).

Nah.
The only thing you need to be a DM is an imagination (No Robots) and a good personality (No Jerks)

Everything else can be taught.
You can teach a 7 year old to DM. Children under 6 cannot be trusted.

 

[Steely_Dan]

Nah.
The only thing you need to be a DM is an imagination (No Robots) and a good personality (No Jerks)

Everything else can be taught.
You can teach a 7 year old to DM. Children under 6 cannot be trusted.

"Nah", as you put it.