An Examination of Differences between Editions

[I'm A Banana]

I've actually never encountered a gamer that argued he should be allowed to use anything and everything from any setting he liked in a game, or called me uncreative for disallowing things like the warforged outside of their setting, except on the internet.

I'd think those gamers would be as rare as the DMs who don't listen when the player has an idea they'd like to bring to the table.

And, again, the "uncreative" thing isn't about you, it's about a given setting. And settings have other needs than to allow every sort of creativity to tromp atop it. Birthright isn't as creative, character-selection wise, as Planescape. Big deal, they're both fun in their own way.

 

[Philotomy Jurament]

Birthright isn't as creative, character-selection wise, as Planescape. Big deal, they're both fun in their own way.

I'd say Birthright character-selection isn't as permissive as Planescape. However, I wouldn't say that more permissiveness necessarily equates to more creativity.

Bah. Semantics. I'm gonna go chew some Black Lotus...

 

[I'm A Banana]

I'd say Birthright character-selection isn't as permissive as Planescape. However, I wouldn't say that more permissiveness necessarily equates to more creativity.

Permission to do what? To *create*.

But you're right, I think we're all basically agreeing, anyway.

 

[molonel]

But you're right, I think we're all basically agreeing, anyway.

NO!

You're wrong!

We cannot agree!

Grrr!

*gnaws at your leg*

Grrr!

 

[Hussar]

Either extreme leads to a lot of unhappy players, though. What Hussar is saying (feeling like the DM is saying their imagination is better than the players') might not be what you've experienced, but it's a story I've certainly heard before. A DM who feels that any little departure from their one true vision is going to destroy the game, and who tenaciously clings to a very narrow outline of what can and cannot be, using their authority like a bludgeon and not a guiderail. I've also heard the story about a DM who allows anything and then can't pull it all together, who throws in the kitchen sink and who just can't motivate anything from it, who refuses to use his authority as a guiderail, leaving the players adrift in a sea of nothingness without any sort of unified tone, feel, or setting.

Again, it's just important to find what works for each group, or even for each game (I've alternated between the restrictive and permissive styles myself with the same group, depending on what I wanted).

KM is saying things much better than I am, so, I'm not going to add anything more.

Well, that's a lie.

Honestly, I don't have a problem with the DM saying No. That's perfectly acceptable. However, what I've been trying to point out, and perhaps not doing a very good job, is that when the DM says No, he's placing his views of the campaign above that of the player's. Now, this might very well be a good thing. It might not.

Sorry if I gave the impression that I was saying that DM's should never say No. That's not it at all. My point was that DM's should recognize that when they do say no, there is the possiblity that the players may not see the reason that is so obvious to the DM.

 

[FireLance]

I think the problem is on both sides of the DM screen, with DMs and players who would rather think "whine-whine" than "win-win".

 

[Philotomy Jurament]

Permission to do what? To *create*.

I know what you're saying. I guess I'm more impressed with creativity that takes a given set of resources and produces something good from it. To my way of thinking, a larger resource pool doesn't mean more creativity, just more resources (i.e. fewer restrictions).

Now, one might argue that it's *harder* to be creative with a fewer resources. I'd agree with that.

But you're right, I think we're all basically agreeing, anyway.

Close enough.

 

[Hussar]

Stumbled across an interesting article from Cory Doctorow. Why Online games Are Dictatorships. While the article is obviously dealing with MMORPG's of various stripes, if you replace the parent company names with the word DM, it could easily apply to many games.

I thought it kind of applied here. Most D&D games are also dictatorships with the DM in the top seat. How palatable that dictatorship is depends on the quality of the DM, but, in the end, the players are all pretty much beholden to the DM. Even with the perceived loss of DM power in 3rd edition, as DM's, we still call most of the shots.

Thoughts?

 

[S'mon]

However, what I've been trying to point out, and perhaps not doing a very good job, is that when the DM says No, he's placing his views of the campaign above that of the player's. Now, this might very well be a good thing. It might not.

I think it's almost always a very good thing. Even if I'm an excellent, creative player, and the GM is kinda mediocre, if I set myself up on par with him I'm undermining his authority at the table in a way which I think is very harmful. Which is not to say that campaign creation can't be a cooperative exercise, only that the GM's authority must be respected even if the player's input is objectively superior to that of the GM.

 

[S'mon]

Stumbled across an interesting article from Cory Doctorow. Why Online games Are Dictatorships. While the article is obviously dealing with MMORPG's of various stripes, if you replace the parent company names with the word DM, it could easily apply to many games.

I thought it kind of applied here. Most D&D games are also dictatorships with the DM in the top seat. How palatable that dictatorship is depends on the quality of the DM, but, in the end, the players are all pretty much beholden to the DM. Even with the perceived loss of DM power in 3rd edition, as DM's, we still call most of the shots.

Thoughts?

My thought is that he's talking about commercial enterprises where the player has an enforceable contract with the MMORPG company, so it's of limited application here. If I as a player have a contractual relationship, I have legal rights.