A GMing telling the players about the gameworld is not like real life

[Numidius]

This post seems to presume that everyone wants to play the way you play. That's simply not the case. A lot of people enjoy the traditional playstyle where the DM has more control and they don't want the reins loostened, or to skip the "fill-in stuff." Hell, they don't even see it as "fill-in stuff." That's a preference of yours, and a lot of people enjoy playing that way, too.

If seemed so, it wasn't my presumption. Again, I remark, I'm talking about my direct experience at different tables. Tables that infortunately broke, sooner or later.
And you are right, in those cases the players did not want to even talk about sharing some content authority, introducing scenes, discuss a different approach with the Gm, to the point of give up playing when the situation was no more bearable.

The counterpart of Gm-decides, is Players-abide.
They wait for the Gm to do the right thing, and don't try to be part of the solution, because it would be like metagame cheating.

(IME, in my town, with the last four or five different groups I played in)

 

[Maxperson]

You would actually be violating the rules of that game if you do this.

The point you're so adeptly missing is that D&D puts control over the rules under the GM as a rule of the game. BW does not.

The point that YOU are missing is that the rules are not relevant to someone who is going to change them and has the authority, by mere virtue of owning the game, to do so. People house rule every game that has ever been made, regardless of whether or not the rules say you can or can't.

Or the GM says, " you're lawful good and have orders yo guard this location. You wouldn't wander off behind the tree. If you do, I'm changing your alignment and you'll lose your Paladin abilities."

Out of one side of your mouth you say that it's not about being a jerk DM, but out of the other side of your mouth you are now giving examples of a jerk DM in defense of your position. Which is it? Are these system issues or jerk DM issues? You can't have it both ways.

Unless they're metagaming. You've declared that cheating, so metagame based actions are strcitly verboten

No. Not even then. I won't stop the action. What I will do is have a first and final with the player after the game and let him know that the second time he cheats he won't be invited back to the game. I'm not going to control his PC outside of some sort of valid game means such as Dominate, though.

 

[Ovinomancer]

The point that YOU are missing is that the rules are not relevant to someone who is going to change them and has the authority, by mere virtue of owning the game, to do so. People house rule every game that has ever been made, regardless of whether or not the rules say you can or can't.

This is a ridiculous point, then. You're postulating someone rewriting the game as if it would be the same thing as actually playing the game as written. D&D puts rules authority, including the changing of rules, under the GM as a rule of the game, so changing that game is still using it's rules. Burning Wheel, though, requires someone breaking the rules of the game to do so. Not the same thing at all, despite you trying to make it so.

Out of one side of your mouth you say that it's not about being a jerk DM, but out of the other side of your mouth you are now giving examples of a jerk DM in defense of your position. Which is it? Are these system issues or jerk DM issues? You can't have it both ways.

Really, that's never happened in any game you've played -- the GM has never once questioned a player's action based on their class or alignment? What if there was a secret treasure behind the tree and you were certain the player was metagaming based on prior knowledge of the module, then what would you do?

The point here is that you cannot label everything that disagrees with you as "Jerk DM". Well, you can, and you've shown remarkable persistence in doing so. Doesn't actually make it true.

No. Not even then. I won't stop the action. What I will do is have a first and final with the player after the game and let him know that the second time he cheats he won't be invited back to the game. I'm not going to control his PC outside of some sort of valid game means such as Dominate, though.[/FONT][/COLOR]

Right, you'll just prevent them from ever declaring any future actions if they disagree with your ruling on their action.

It's amusing, by the by, that you snipped off the part about Shield Master.

 

[Maxperson]

This is a ridiculous point, then. You're postulating someone rewriting the game as if it would be the same thing as actually playing the game as written. D&D puts rules authority, including the changing of rules, under the GM as a rule of the game, so changing that game is still using it's rules. Burning Wheel, though, requires someone breaking the rules of the game to do so. Not the same thing at all, despite you trying to make it so.

Um, no. I didn't say that. Try again.

Right, you'll just prevent them from ever declaring any future actions if they disagree with your ruling on their action.

You really let your players roll for stats, get a 12 and put an 18 down on their sheet? You really let them just tell you whatever number they feel like when they roll a d20? Cheating is just fine in your games is it?

Not allowing cheating =/= control of PC actions.

It's amusing, by the by, that you snipped off the part about Shield Master.

It was an invalid bad faith response and didn't warrant inclusion in my post.

 

[Ovinomancer]

Um, no. I didn't say that. Try again.



You really let your players roll for stats, get a 12 and put an 18 down on their sheet? You really let them just tell you whatever number they feel like when they roll a d20? Cheating is just fine in your games is it?

Not allowing cheating =/= control of PC actions.



It was an invalid bad faith response and didn't warrant inclusion in my post.

Max, I think I'm done with your special pleading. Enjoy.

 

[Maxperson]

Max, I think I'm done with your special pleading. Enjoy.

Excellent. I'd rather spend time responding to people who are interested in having a genuine discussion, anyway.

 

[hawkeyefan]

[MENTION=23751]Maxperson[/MENTION] I am wondering, setting aside the whole “Mother May I” label and also the idea that someone can pick up a copy of Shadowrun and house rule it till it’s Monopoly, would you describe D&D as a DM driven game?

If so, why?

If not, why not? And what would be an example of a GM Driven game in your opinion?

 

[Maxperson]

[MENTION=23751]Maxperson[/MENTION] I am wondering, setting aside the whole “Mother May I” label and also the idea that someone can pick up a copy of Shadowrun and house rule it till it’s Monopoly, would you describe D&D as a DM driven game?

Yes.

If so, why?

If not, why not? And what would be an example of a GM Driven game in your opinion?

Because it expects the DM to be the primary one to come up with the adventures, write plots and so on. The reason I say the DM is primary, and not only one to come up with adventures, is because it's very easy for a proactive player to set the adventure through his PC's actions and goals. The game is mostly written around it being the DM, though.

 

[hawkeyefan]

Yes.



Because it expects the DM to be the primary one to come up with the adventures, write plots and so on. The reason I say the DM is primary, and not only one to come up with adventures, is because it's very easy for a proactive player to set the adventure through his PC's actions and goals. The game is mostly written around it being the DM, though.

Okay, cool.

So then would you say that your opinion is that the term “Mother May I”, generally speaking, would refer to a GM driven game that’s gone wrong in some way?

Is “Mother May I” something to be cautious of when playing/GMing that kind of game?

 

[Maxperson]

Okay, cool.

So then would you say that your opinion is that the term “Mother May I”, generally speaking, would refer to a GM driven game that’s gone wrong in some way?

Horribly wrong. It would require a DM to go out of his way to allow or disallow all the declarations of the players. That's not something I have ever encountered before, even with the few DM's who I rate as bad ones.

Is “Mother May I” something to be cautious of when playing/GMing that kind of game?

I wouldn't think so. I don't think it occurs to the vast majority of us that we can stop a PC from going around a tree to look at something from the other side. The notion being put forth by the "Mother May I" crowd that D&D is "Mother May I," because the DM has the power to stop every declaration people make in D&D, is bupkis. The DM has never had that power unless he has taken it and given it to himself.