Back in the day...

[RFisher]

But what if everyone in the group doesn't agree on the way something should be handled?

Same as when that happens in every other situation in life. You compromise and/or leave the decision up to a person the group has temporarily granted final decision making authority to. Really, this happens when playing Monopoly or football or just about any game.

Unfortunately, a lot of referees, especially the ones from back in the day, see the PCs as enemies to be defeated

Like franc said, your experience differs greatly from mine. If the referees I've played roleplaying games with--from the 1980s until the present--have strayed from impartial its more likely towards being too easy on the players. (Not Monty Haul necessarily, but too easy.)

The thing is that this discussion is largely irrelevant anyway.

I don't think it is! I'm definately changed and/or clarified my own preferences based on discussions like this.

 

[Orius]

My experience differs greatly. I saw way more Montie Haul types than Killer DMs back in the day.

You make a good point. Back in the day, the unbalanced nature of too much treasure wasn't as well known, so it makes sense Monty Haul was a bit more common. Of course, this was when DMs had to create a lot of items from scratch, and the game was based on less levels it is today, so that changes things too.

Killer/Montie DMs are system independent, anyway. Hell, with 3e, it's even easier to be a Killer DM. Simply grab a monster book, flip to the back, select a monster with a CR 2-3x the party level, then drop one on each player.

True enough, killer DMing really is independant of system.

 

[Aaron L]

Thank you for the fascinating answeres, but now I really must ask: why bother using a game system at all, if you just want the DM to decide the chances for everything based solely on his judgement? I'm afraid the such a setup is something that I would never want to play, I'd rather write a story about my character than make up the rules about how to play him and then make up the rest of the rules on the fly.

Putting so much into the hands of the DM means that you are limiting DMing to only those who can come up with complete rulesets on the fly. I know I would never trust myself to make arbitrary decisions like that based solely on my judgement, and trust myself to be consistent in such rulings. Rules divide the burden between the DM and the players, a common framework that everyone can know and use. It seems that you want all of the work on the shoulders of the DM, only he knows (and makes!) the rules, the players just kind of ask if they can do things and the DM decides if they can do it based only on his reasoning. It seems like an awful lot to take on yourself.


Of course, I'm NOT arguing that the game is horrible or that you shouldn't play. I'm arguing that it ISN'T superior to my game and that I would never ever ever in a million years want to play a game like that.

 

[buzz]

Interesting answers, 'glo.

roll the dice...

To be clear, does the player roll 3d6 vs. the appropriate stat (say, Dex, in this case) with the situational modifiers you mention? What are the typical modifiers you would use? Also, is this an opposed roll of some sort? I.e., does the moneychanger get a roll to see if he notices the attempt, or his level of awareness handled as another modifier?

 

[buzz]

Putting so much into the hands of the DM means that you are limiting DMing to only those who can come up with complete rulesets on the fly.

But doesn't this sort of style also put more into the hands of the players, too? In my example, Penelope is able to use her righteousness as an aid to her pick pocket attempt simply because it makes sense (from her perspective) in the situation I've outlined. IOW, if the DM can "draw outside the lines", can't the players as well?

(Granted, I can see this being handled in d20 as simply an "untrained" Sleight of Hand check (i.e., a Dex check), with a situational bonus reflecting Penelope's resolve. Of course, the basic DC for this is 20, and you can't succeed on any task greater than DC10 w/o ranks in SoH... By the book, at best Penelope will make a failed attempt that won't get noticed.)

This is all making me think of HeroQuest by Issaries, Inc. In that system, your PC is basically a collection of keywords taken from a background history you write up. Each keyword then has a numerical rating you try and beat on a d20. You can gain "synergy" bonus when applicable, e.g., Penelope might not have a "sneaky thief" keyword, but she might have a "oathbound to defend orphans" keyword that she can use to bolster her attempt.

 

[Faraer]

For myself, I wouldn't want to play with a DM who I trusted less than some rigid ruleset. Of course, it's easier to sell books to people who want a lot to be defined by the rules.

And yes, HeroQuest is marvellous, and for a lot of people reading it would show up how unnecessary and arbitrary some of the requirements and conventions of D&D and its derivatives are.

 

[buzzard]

For myself, I wouldn't want to play with a DM who I trusted less than some rigid ruleset. Of course, it's easier to sell books to people who want a lot to be defined by the rules.

You evidently only play home games. I play a fair amount of convention and RPGA gaming. A solid rules base does mitigate variability in GM quality.

buzzard

 

[buzz]

A solid rules base does mitigate variability in GM quality.

I think this point came up earlier in the thread, too. I.e., old school D&D could be very dependent on the DM: was it someone who didn't grok large swaths of the DMG ( :raises hand: ) and was winging a lot of it, or was it someone with a mind like a steel trap and a stack of Arduin crit tables under their arm?

I don't know if 3e/d20 completely mitigates this, as I still see variation from DM to DM, but it certainly presents a much clearer and rigidly-defined ruleset, so spotting deviation is probably a lot easier than before.

Of course, whether one is better than another is probably a taste thing. I tend to prefer the 3e way to the OD&D way, but it depends. If I want rigorous, I'll go for d20 or HERO. If I want something more free-form, I'm more comfortable with a set of rules that, while "lite", is still pretty clear-cut (e.g., HeroQuest).

Still, diaglo is tempting me to break out those old books...

 

[Aaron L]

For myself, it's MUCH less an issue of wether I trust the DM than wether I think the DM has the knowledge and expertise necessary to determine an outcome, and the time and/or motivation to have thought out all ramifications of his decision. I am placing my trust in the people I buy the books from to have taken the time to think through the consequences of a set of rules. I am saving the DM the time of making rules up himself.

I ask again, why are you using a set of published rules at all if you want the DM to determine outcomes and make up rules on the fly by himself? It seems like an awful burden, especially when there are already rules systems out there to determine outcomes, systems that have been playtested and researched much more than any individual DM has time to handle by himself.

 

[rogueattorney]

I ask again, why are you using a set of published rules at all if you want the DM to determine outcomes and make up rules on the fly by himself? It seems like an awful burden, especially when there are already rules systems out there to determine outcomes, systems that have been playtested and researched much more than any individual DM has time to handle by himself.

And I still haven't been at a loss for for finding an existing resolution mechanic or ever gotten into a fight with a player as to how something should be handled. The DM isn't "making up the rules" but is making a judgment call, like a referee in football. This is something that still happens in 3e when the DM sets a DC.

To me, the bigger burden is to be faced with myriad skills, feets, prestige classes, etc, that just don't need to be there for me to enjoy the game. Sure, I could excise them to taylor the game to fit my needs, but why, when I already have a perfectly suitable system.

R.A.