D&D General Alternate thought - rule of cool is bad for gaming

So if someone doesn't or won't DM, shouldn't that mean that to some degree they are at the mercy of the DM? I'm sure people will pull their hair out over that statement. But at the point of adjudication the DM usually has the final say otherwise every game would bog down. D&D by socratic method doesn't sound like something I would enjoy.

If something is happening when you are playing that doesn't appeal to you; communicate with the group. At which point you either come to consensus as a group....grumble under your breath (or on a forum) or leave the group. Were all playing voluntarily.

If I'm DMing, I'm going to run a game I enjoy DMing. Doesn't mean I won't listen to my players, I can be reasonably flexible. But I'm not going to have fun running a game with a gang of evil kobolds who's main goal in life is to see how many babies they can eat.

Which is why I try to be up front as possible.
 

log in or register to remove this ad

Just off the top of my head:

"Anything not permitted is forbidden." When the rules of the world are the physics, they determine what is possible to do. Hence, if the rules don't cover it, it doesn't exist, because the rules are what the world is, hence, what the rules are not, the world cannot be. This is the natural direction toward which such design tends, at least in D&D. That which cannot be spoken of must be passed over in silence.

As noted above, the endless reams of narrowly context-specific modifiers and alterations. Every situation needs its modifier, otherwise it's gibberish--again, rooted in the idea that for every thing its specific rule, and a specific rule for every thing, which is the conceptual heart of "rules as physics."

The problems of PrCs, ACFs, substitution levels, etc. If there's a cultural difference between Paladins from continent A and continent B, it needs to be represented within the rules, or it doesn't exist. The proliferation of these ultra-hyper-specific build options--"bloat," as many call it--directly arises from the need to have everything represented by a rule, to make every nuance of physical difference explicitly encoded into the game.

Ridiculous optimization gaps. A ruthlessly-optimized character will beat the pants off of a casual, built-for-fun character in this context, because ruthless optimization means capitalizing on every possible situational and contextual bonus to eke out the greatest benefit. Players are actively encouraged to do this, leading to an obsessive pre-building culture-of-play, rather than a culture-of-play that engenders spontaneity and creativity.

For lack of a better term, "backstory exploitation." Backstory is no longer an optional flair or a fun seed for future adventures. It's now a critical part of the character, looped into the ruthless optimization as much as any other part. Of course, 3e in particular was rather sloppy in its design on this front, which is a distinct harm, but the margin of error was razor-thin to begin with because of how much benefit can be wrung out of the "right" backstory--strangling interesting or unusual options (e.g. "bad" race choices, quirky backgrounds like a Spy Paladin or an Urchin Wizard or a halfling barbarian or what-have-you).

I'm sure I could come up with more. All of these things are, in one way or another, rooted in the need for every physical thing to be represented by a discrete, specific rule, and the need to have discrete, specific rules for all things that are possible/valid/real.
None of those things make the game unplayable. They instead make it a game you don't want to play.
 


Unfortunately... the concept of 'Talk to your players' is one that too many people just can't handle.

The irony of course being all the people who continually call WotC chicken for not taking risks with the game, while at the same time being unwilling and afraid to talk to their players and tell them "No". So they keep whining about how WotC won't put the rules into the game they want so that they don't HAVE to tell their players "No". They can just shrug their shoulders and say "I'd like to let you do X, but the rules say you can't! Blame WotC, not me!"
Usually the concern is the other way 'round, "I'd like to restrict this aspect, but the core say they can do it and the players insist they should get to do what the book says". It can be tough, but you just have to bull through that. I'm about to start a Level Up game with two playable heritages: human and constructed (read robot).
 

All valid reasons why someone might not want to DM. Only downside though is that it restricts the types of games a person is able to play, because they are at the mercy of the person who does step up to DM.

The biggest advantage of being a DM is that you get to have a game in exactly the way you want it to be run. Unfortunately though, you just don't get to play a PC in it. ;)
Except a lot of folks here seem to think the DM shouldn't get to have a game in exactly the way they want it to be run, because then they're a "tyrant".
 

Many games have rules designed to represent genre conventions. Those conventions are often not "real" in a certain sense (in that they are supposed to occur in POV far more frequently than is supposed to represent the overall reality of the setting) and are explicitly not acknowledged by the characters in the setting (barring reified versions, which usually because of that look nothing like the normal versions).

This sort of high genre imposition may not suit you, but it serves some extremely specific purposes for people who use it.
Fair enough, but rules that simulate genre conventions and narrative tropes are NOT the only kinds of rules that aren't "harmful to the game".
 


Except a lot of folks here seem to think the DM shouldn't get to have a game in exactly the way they want it to be run, because then they're a "tyrant".
How many of those DMs end up with no players because their play style has alienated most of their available players? Or put differently, what good is having the perfect game if there is no one but the DM to experience it?
 

So if someone doesn't or won't DM, shouldn't that mean that to some degree they are at the mercy of the DM?

In practice, if they can't find another GM, and are determined to play? Yes.

I'm sure people will pull their hair out over that statement. But at the point of adjudication the DM usually has the final say otherwise every game would bog down. D&D by socratic method doesn't sound like something I would enjoy.

If something is happening when you are playing that doesn't appeal to you; communicate with the group. At which point you either come to consensus as a group....grumble under your breath (or on a forum) or leave the group. Were all playing voluntarily.

That's correct, but it doesn't make the situation any more pleasant or appealing.
 


Remove ads

Top