D&D General DM Authority

In my experience big reveals like that work a lot better in fiction than games because in games there is a sense that our decisions should matter. Having a massively incorrect picture of what is going on creates a visceral reaction in most players about their own agency. The Last of Us 2 played around with player expectations in some pretty severe ways and is pretty controversial for doing so.

Yeah, even in fiction twists can be very controversial. The "Shamalan Twist" is usually seen as a bad thing, because it comes out of nowhere, for little reason, and derails the story.

Now, it can work in a game, but it has to be done very carefully and very rarely. And, I'd say for every single time it is revealed that your ally is an enemy, it has to be the players who uncover the truth and force the reveal. The bad guy turning on them after they hand over the McGuffin? It makes them feel like fools.

Them figuring it out and then coming up with a plan to out them, or even stop them? That makes them feel more accomplished. They were being fooled, but they were good enough to figure it out on their own.
 

log in or register to remove this ad

Wow... a spaceship out of nowhere...
Not my cup of tea. If I had been one of his players, I would have voiced my disagreement right on the spot. It would not have been a cause for leaving the game because I would have waited to see where it was going. But for the DM to force another to take the chair? No way.
 

While it might seem highly unlikely to those who have not been involved in fantasy adventure gaming for an extended period of time, after the flush of excitement wears off – perhaps a few months or a year, depending on the intensity of play – some participants will become bored and move to other gaming forms, returning to your campaign only occasionally. Shortly thereafter even your most dedicated players will occasionally find that dungeon levels and wilderness castles grow stale, regardless of subtle differences and unusual challenges. It is possible, however, for you to devise a campaign which will have a very minimal amount of participant attrition and enthusiast ennui, and it is not particularly difficult to do so.

Is has been mentioned already, the game must be neither too difficult to survive nor so easy as to offer little excitement or challenge There must always be something desirable to gain, something important to lose, and the chance of having either happen. Furthermore, there must be some purpose to it all. There must be some backdrop against which adventures are carried out, and no matter how tenuous the strands, some web which connects the evil and good, the opposing powers, the rival states and various peoples. This need not be evident at first, but as play continues, hints should be given to players, and their characters should become involved in the interaction and struggle between these vaster entities. Thus, characters begin as less than pawns, but as they progress in expertise, each eventually realizes that he or she is a meaningful, if lowly, piece in the cosmic game being conducted. When this occurs, players then have a dual purpose to their play, for not only will their player characters and henchmen gain levels of experience, but their actions have meaning above and beyond that of personal aggrandizement.

But if serious purpose is integral to a successfully ongoing campaign, there must be moments of relief as well. Such counterplots can be lesser and different themes within the whole, whether some side dungeon or quest, a minor altercation between petty nobles, or whatever. Occasional “pure fun” scenarios can be conducted also. That is, moments of silliness and humor help to contrast with the grinding seriousness of a titanic struggle and relieve participants at the same time. After all, ADVANCED DUNGEONS & DRAGONS is first and foremost a game, a pastime for fun and enjoyment. At times the fun aspect must be stressed. Thus, in my “Greyhawk Campaign” I included an “Alice In Wonderland” level, and while it is a deadly place, those who have adventured through it have uniformly proclaimed it as great fun because it is the antithesis of the campaign as a whole. Similarly, there are places where adventurers can journey to a land of pure Greek mythology, into the future where the island of King Kong awaits their pleasure, or through the multiverse to different planets, including Jack Vance’s “Planet of Adventure”, where they hunt sequins in the Carabas while Dirdir and Dirdirmen hunt them.

Of course, such areas represent a considerable investment in time and effort. Many of you will not have hours to spend creating these diversions, so it might seem that your campaign is doomed to eventual stagnation. Not so. The various prepared modules available commercially are ideal for use as sidelights to the whole of your game. In addition, there are many games which can be “plugged into” your AD&D campaign to serve as relief. After all is said and done, role playing is role playing and the setting is not of paramount importance. The trick is to adapt one system to the other so as to enable continuity of the characters from AD&D into the other setting. This allows not only a refreshing change, but it poses new problems to participants and adds new factors to your campaign – new abilities, new weapons, etc. TSR has many games and rules systems which can be used with this game to expand and invigorate your campaign. Space does not permit detailed explanations of how to do this with each and every possible system, but two readily lend themselves to both the spirit of AD&D and its systems: BOOT HILL and GAMMA WORLD.

From the 1e DMG.

You have to understand the context. A 'campaign' meant something different then.

Nowadays you would just take a break and play a different game - but then the campaign and the game were pretty much indistinguishable.

And if that was the sort of thing that was known to happen occasionally then you can't really call it a bait and swtich.
 

Wow... a spaceship out of nowhere...
Not my cup of tea. If I had been one of his players, I would have voiced my disagreement right on the spot. It would not have been a cause for leaving the game because I would have waited to see where it was going. But for the DM to force another to take the chair? No way.
I know it was, like, the 70s man but there's just so many things that probably would have annoyed me about the story.

The "gotcha" DMing, forcing someone else to DM, the complete change of venue, apparently just telling someone that their player is over without any input from the player or action by the PC.

I get that they were different times and all. Guess maybe I just don't worship at the throne of Gygax and am able to just recognize that I probably would not have appreciated his DM style, even if it would have been fantastic for some.
 


When it comes to the ruling itself, I believe a DM should exercise restraint in adding unspecified side-effects to spells and features. However, given levitate was ruled to work as it did, you might have just levitated something inanimate, set off all the traps, and then proceeded... unless the DM also ruled that the traps could indefinitely reset themselves. In which case....

On the one hand, I am always as DM okay with a narrative arc ending futilely. Be that by TPK, crushed morale, party lacking skills to continue (and the initiative or funds to hire an NPC rogue!), etc. So had party proposed that - I would have been disappointed by their lack of initiative, but sure - they return to town and bury their fighter. Some other party presumably eventually solves the dungeon.

I always have other lines that play can proceed along and my basic position is that the players - not me - decide if they want to take on any given challenge. If they turn back from the dungeon for no reason at all, and decide to wander that pleasant looking woods instead, I am okay with that. There could be consequences, of course, where that seems plausible.

With the strong caveat that I was not there and perhaps you did not intend this to come across as it does, the situation sounds adversarial. By the time a group of players are strong-arming their DM with threats of abandoning play, it sounds like a group is off on a bad footing.
The "levitate causes ground pressure" surprise rule was announced after we had send the fighter bobsledding down the hallway of traps resulting in his death not before we sent him.

I do agree with you that, as a GM, sometimes an "adventure" the players pursue can be left hanging in an unfinished state....or even failed. In the situation I am describing the GM was running a one-off adventure, so any off-the-beaten-path choices would have been going out of bounds of the story the GM had to tell. In a campaign we wouldn't have quit just because one character died (even if we all though he was killed unfairly) because a campaign is about a longer term story than any single location.

Edit: In that particular group (this was my High School gaming buddies) several of us had a particular "system" we would run campaigns in. We had D&D, Star Wars, Torg, Shadowrun, Marvel Superheros, James Bond, and Chill campaigns running concurrently. In this particular case the James Bond GM wanted to run a one-off D&D adventure. All that "leaving the game" meant would have been we just started playing some other game with the same group, the decision to ditch was for that adventure only.
 
Last edited:


I think the fact of the matter is just that roleplaying has changed and improved a lot since the times of Gygax.

Even though I gamed in the 70s, we never played campaigns quite the same as what Gygax did from my understanding of his style. It always seemed to be a very adversarial game.

I mean, who knows. Maybe I would have had a blast, but I've never enjoyed dungeon crawls or killer campaigns like Tomb of Horrors other than as one-shot change of pace games. Different strokes and all.
 


I think the fact of the matter is just that roleplaying has changed and improved a lot since the times of Gygax.
I totally agree. I've never played under the "Players vs. DM and their dungeon" assembly line of quickly dying PC games, and I have been playing since the late 80s. I know there are people who still like that style of game, and I have always wondered if its because they sampled all the other styles and enjoy it more, or if they are just so used to it they haven't really given another style a fair shot.
 

Remove ads

Top