D&D Essay #1: Imbalance of Power [EDIT: 2nd draft in post 44.]

[LostSoul]

As I understand it, Nixon's Dunjon does this, as does one whose precise name escapes me (it won an award of some sort fairly recently), in which each player has a position to play at the table, and represents an aspect of each of several interlinked characters (All I remember is that you're supposed to light a candle before each game, and drink chilled white wine and listen to Sigur Ròs whilst playing. I never said it was an unpretentious game!).

I think that's Polaris.

 

[Vurt]

Prime-Time Adventures.

edit: Some people don't consider that an RPG (I don't think it says RPG anywhere in the book itself). So let's make one:

Any time you do something in-game, the player to your right can demand you roll a d6. If you roll 1-3, you fail/can't narrate; if you roll 4-6, you succeed/can narrate.

There. That rule covers everything.

Does it?

How does it deal with situations where you cannot succeed or fail? Admittedly, I'm having difficulty trying to come up with a good example, maybe such a thing doesn't exist; the best I can come up with is trying to jump to Andromeda. If the roll comes up that I've failed, does that mean I somehow flub the jump and stumble, or that I don't arrive at Andromeda? If I've succeeded, does that mean the jump worked, or that I've aimed myself in the right direction, or is that two separate rolls?

What happens if I roll a success trying to do something impossible? For example, if I try to eat my head, or stick my (very human) elbow in my ear?

I'm not trying to be deliberately obtuse, merely pointing out that maybe there is room for another rule here. And if not one more rule, why not two. If two, then why not four?

Cheers,
Vurt

 

[Reynard]

So the delicate balance of power between players and DMs that you describe seems more easily maintained when everyone's expectations and desires for what's fun are laid out before a given campaign begins. What do you think?

That is definitely a factor, and something I'll likely address in the second draft. The difficult thing about that issue, though, is whether players are being actively cooperative or passively cooperative, and at which point either manages to impinge upon the DMs authority.

Food for thought.

 

[Reynard]

Oh man, if that made you speechless, don't get a blog.

Other than what I posted I thought the rest was pretty obvious, or non-intuitive. Really, my only walk-away was your use of those 'geek-hooks'

Is this meant for non-gamers? Maybe I'm using the wrong lens.

The text is sitting on the fence ragarding intended audience. In the second draft I will have to pick one. There's advantages to either perspective -- writing for the unitiated, or those who are assumed to be familiar with the subject matter -- and right now it is teetering.

What does everyone think? Is the subject matter better served as if explaining it to someone interested in but unfamiliar with D&D, or as a discussion aimed at experienced players/DMs? it is an important question because it will be my intent to keep the same audience and tone throughout the essay series.

 

[Varianor Abroad]

Capes is an indie superhero-genre RPG with no "referee" role.

 

[Lackhand]

What does everyone think? Is the subject matter better served as if explaining it to someone interested in but unfamiliar with D&D, or as a discussion aimed at experienced players/DMs? it is an important question because it will be my intent to keep the same audience and tone throughout the essay series.

Depends. Do you have a goal you want to accomplish with these, other than getting your thoughts into the open?

My selfish point of view says to aim it at me! Write for the experienced player/DM!

My more socialized point of view says that approachability is good.

If you're leaving it on EN World, most of the readers will probably be fairly experienced players/DMs, or will be interested enough to dig around the surrounding commentary for discussion/clarification.

So I'd say go for the experienced player and DM.

 

[Fifth Element]

Any time you do something in-game, the player to your right can demand you roll a d6. If you roll 1-3, you fail/can't narrate; if you roll 4-6, you succeed/can narrate.

There. That rule covers everything.

That's rather disengenuous. If that's what you mean by having rules for every possibility, then all RPGs could be considered to have rules for every possibility, and the distinction becomes meaningless.

 

[Raven Crowking]

I don't think this is true.

A game that has infinite possibilities would require infinite rules to adjudicate those possibilities. If you could write 10,000 rules a second, you would reach this level of rules.....never.

RC

EDIT: Got to the part where you claimed that one rule covers all possibilities. I do not believe that to be accurate, even in the example that you give. As with the DM in the OP, the player on the right is relying upon unstated "world knowledge" rules to determine when the die should, or should not, be rolled. In addition, the entire group is relying upon unstated "world knowledge" rules to determine whether something should be allowed, whether the die is rolled or not.

D&D has no official rule that says that a dropped object falls to the ground, yet many people would agree that this is an implied rule.

Simply because a rule is not stated/printed, does not mean that a rule doesn't exist.

(And, BTW, good essay! )

RC

 

[Thornir Alekeg]

So let's make one:

Any time you do something in-game, the player to your right can demand you roll a d6. If you roll 1-3, you fail/can't narrate; if you roll 4-6, you succeed/can narrate.

There. That rule covers everything.

How about a real rule? The only thing this rule really does is give the potential to make any game completely silly:

Player 1: I'm going to leap off the balcony, grab the curtains, swing over the head of the minotaur, then strike the floor with my hammer so hard it cracks open causing the minotaur to fall through into the room below so I can just grab the gemstone from the pedestal.
Player 2: That sounds cool. You succeed.
Dungeon Master: Huh? You can't do that!
Player 2: Well, I like his idea, and since there are no rules to cover this and I sit to his right, I get to make the call as to whether he can do it. I say he can.
Player 1: Awesome!
DM: But...
Player 2: All right, my turn. I'm going to run up the wall, hang upside-down from the ceiling and shoot arrows at the minotaur through the crack in the floor.
DM: You can't!
Player 2: Well no rules cover that, so you can make me roll for it, or just let me do it.
DM: Roll
Player 2: A five, I succeed.
DM: I'm leaving to go play WoW.

 

[Stormtower]

That is definitely a factor, and something I'll likely address in the second draft. The difficult thing about that issue, though, is whether players are being actively cooperative or passively cooperative, and at which point either manages to impinge upon the DMs authority.

Food for thought.

I'm curious to hear your take on what might define actively vs. passively cooperative and how it intersects with DM authority. Perhaps you could lace your 2nd draft with an example of each type of cooperation (hypothetical examples or, preferably, drawn from real world table experiences).