• COMING SOON! -- Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition! Level up your 5E game! The standalone advanced 5E tabletop RPG adds depth and diversity to the game you love!
log in or register to remove this ad

 

D&D General DM Authority

Maxperson

Morkus from Orkus
In a solo game a single person is both the DM and a player, therefore its still a shared authority between the players and the GMs.
What an absurd argument. You can't share with yourself. If something is yours, it's ALL yours.

The solo DM/player creates a different circumstance where there really is no player as the game defines it. It's effectively just the DM running NPCs through a dungeon.
 

log in or register to remove this ad

Yes. Just like playing chess against yourself is still playing chess.
As a chess player. I can relate to that. Fully.

What an absurd argument. You can't share with yourself. If something is yours, it's ALL yours.

The solo DM/player creates a different circumstance where there really is no player as the game defines it. It's effectively just the DM running NPCs through a dungeon.
Nope. This is not always true. My house is mine. It also belong to my wife, and soon, the bank will stop owning it too... So if something is yours... it is not always all yours. My wife and my bank know that.

Ho and thank you again for the book. Still have not found it on Ebay and other places (at a reasonable price that is)... but soon!
 

I
My personal position would be that playing Ironsworn in co-op mode is no farther removed from the roots of the game than a game like Fifth Edition that calls the DM a lead storyteller. Especially if play involves being led through that DM's linear plots. I would call both worthy descendants and part of the greater D&D tradition. Some of the people I play OSR games would call neither worthy of that mantle,
In my experience and opinion, the fundamental play loop of D&D and most roleplaying games is the one between the DM & player(s).

The one where one person knows (with supplemental improvisation and possibly procedural generation) the details of the world, and acts as the eyes, ears, and cast of thousands for the other people in the game, who inhabit the roles of characters and make decisions for those characters.

DM describes situation, players ask questions, choose actions, DM makes judgements, resolves actions. Repeat.

This is what I was referring to earlier when I mentioned, "D&D as described in the rulebooks".

You can roleplay in other ways, but this is the baseline essence of D&D and most other tabletop RPGs. You can sort-of play D&D solo using a module authored for that, or purely procedural generation, but to my mind doing so is a far greater rules departure than any edition change D&D has ever had. In terms of how we play and what the game IS, OD&D and 4E are more akin to one another than 1st ed AD&D and someone using the 1st Ed random dungeon rules* for solo play. Despite the vast majority of text being identical.

Perhaps this is part of my OSR or just OS sensibilities. :)

I'm not saying co-operative creation /collaborative storytelling games are bad. If they're fun and a group enjoys them then I would agree that they are worthy descendents.
 
Last edited:

Maxperson

Morkus from Orkus
As a chess player. I can relate to that. Fully.


Nope. This is not always true. My house is mine. It also belong to my wife, and soon, the bank will stop owning it too... So if something is yours... it is not always all yours. My wife and my bank know that.
If you owe money or have a shared ownership, it's not really yours. It's only partially yours, If something is yours, nobody else has any claim to it. If I stop making payments on "my" car, it gets taken back by the people it really belongs to.
Ho and thank you again for the book. Still have not found it on Ebay and other places (at a reasonable price that is)... but soon!
Sure thing! I use it when I make dungeons and castles and such for my game.

And I see it on Ebay for $40 as a low price. That doesn't seem terrible given the age of the book.
 

The problem is, you are acting like making a decision in a game is the same as crafting a story.


Making decisions is the main point (outside of more story-telling type games where the story can be the main point). Of course it's entirely possible to have a game where "making a decision for what your character is doing" isn't a part of the game, and despite what you say, there is still a game, it just isn't a roleplaying one (see; storytelling games).
Yup. Making a sandwich is the activity; building the compost heap is a side effect. Even if the compost winds up being a wonderful and beneficial thing on its own. Painting my miniatures is an activity; having an interesting pattern of colors on my brush palette which someone might find aesthetically appealing is a side effect.

As I opined 10+ pages ago, intent matters.

When I play D&D, I am usually not crafting a story. I am roleplaying. I am playing a game with the rest of the group.

A story (or multiple different stories, similar but possibly contradictory and not necessarily mutually recognizable to a third party) is likely to emerge after the fact if one or more of the participants or observers decides to tell a story about what happened in play. But that's optional and ancillary.

Some folks play differently, with more focus on story. On making decisions based on what will create more drama, rather than based on what will best enable their character to survive, accumulate power, and achieve his goals. Both are roleplaying. Only one is deliberately crafting a story. For the other, no story might ever be told, but the game would still be enjoyable and fulfilling as a game.
 
Last edited:

If you owe money or have a shared ownership, it's not really yours. It's only partially yours, If something is yours, nobody else has any claim to it. If I stop making payments on "my" car, it gets taken back by the people it really belongs to.

Sure thing! I use it when I make dungeons and castles and such for my game.

And I see it on Ebay for $40 as a low price. That doesn't seem terrible given the age of the book.
1) Married means that everything you "own" is split 50/50 with your beloved. (No I'm not complaining. I love my wife. 30 years with her so far and she tolerates me. That means a lot! :) )

2) The lowest I have seen so far for the book is 75$ and not in very good condition. Anything remotely tolerable in condition is around 120 to 150$ US... Which means that in Canadian Dollar it amounts at around 200$ not counting shipping... A bit too much for a simple book that was for 1ed anyways that I can (so far, as I have not seen the book) make do with the 1ed DMG. Ebay is such a rip off nowadays... But I'll keep looking. That's for sure.
 


Maxperson

Morkus from Orkus
1) Married means that everything you "own" is split 50/50 with your beloved. (No I'm not complaining. I love my wife. 30 years with her so far and she tolerates me. That means a lot! :) )
Same here, but if I asked her she'd tell me that my D&D stuff is mine. LOL She's not a gamer. We're coming up on 9 years this March. Congrats on 30!!
2) The lowest I have seen so far for the book is 75$ and not in very good condition. Anything remotely tolerable in condition is around 120 to 150$ US... Which means that in Canadian Dollar it amounts at around 200$ not counting shipping... A bit too much for a simple book that was for 1ed anyways that I can (so far, as I have not seen the book) make do with the 1ed DMG. Ebay is such a rip off nowadays... But I'll keep looking. That's for sure.
It actually translates well to any edition. I hope you get it eventually.
 

Huh. Then why is it that in my household it's "What's hers is hers and what's mine is hers." :cautious:
Same here. But we both have extensive libraries. I doubt that she would share her collection of History books, Agatha Christie novels and zounds of other books. Together, Our libraries hold about 4,000 different books. Not counting RPG books. That is a lot of books. Guess I'llget to keep my books as she does not read english ;) .

But for everything, what is mine is hers and what is hers... stay with her. :unsure:
Same here, but if I asked her she'd tell me that my D&D stuff is mine. LOL She's not a gamer. We're coming up on 9 years this March. Congrats on 30!!

It actually translates well to any edition. I hope you get it eventually.
Thank you and grats to you too.
And yes, I hope to find it at a reasonable price and a reasonable state... (I don't mind some wear, but I don't want a shreddy either).
 


prabe

Aspiring Lurker (He/Him)
As I just posted to Charlaquin, thanks for answering the question. I am trying to understand. And, full disclosure, I started reading this thread around page 40. So I may have missed some things. I also don't want to assume answers from you, so I would ask the same as I did Charlaquin, is playing D&D without a DM still playing D&D? Thanks again.
No worries on the delay, and apologies for my own.

Yes, playing D&D without a DM is playing D&D. I haven't ever done so, but it doesn't seem to me as though it would either feel like D&D to me, or do what I want D&D to do.
 

prabe

Aspiring Lurker (He/Him)
We still call our game D&D and we've altered about 80-90% of the rules over the years.
I get the feeling your game is about as different from 1E AD&D, as published, as my 5E games are. I genuinely have no problem with considering them both D&D (not that you probably care, much).

Also, I suspect that there's something about the nature of the changes to the rules that would matter, and I don't get the feeling you've altered them in a particularly un-D&D-ish direction.
 

Sabathius42

Bree-Yark
What an absurd argument. You can't share with yourself. If something is yours, it's ALL yours.

The solo DM/player creates a different circumstance where there really is no player as the game defines it. It's effectively just the DM running NPCs through a dungeon.
This is just you grudging and not budging over semantics.

If you played "solo" D&D where you controlled 4 characters progressing through a dungeon you would wear two hats. When its the fighters turn and you decide they want to use a healing potion and run to the edge of the lake, that is being the player (as far as the traditional description of players/GMs in D&D goes).

When its the orcs turn and you decide that they are going to double move towards the fighter rather than double move towards the wizard, that is being the GM (as far as the traditional description of players/GMs in D&D goes).

When the fighter wants to continue to flee from the orc, but doesn't want to leave his wizard friend behind so stays and puts up a last defence, even though you KNOW that the orc is afraid of wizards and would never attack him, then you are wearing the hat of an Impartial Neutral Arbiter (which does not exist in traditional D&D but does in a strange solo hybrid game).

You wear at least three different "hats" in a solo game, all of which have different goals, and its very fair to say you can be playing a collaborative game, despite the fact that you are doing so by yourself.

Its the same as if you were to play the boardgame Pandemic by yourself...it would still be considered a Co-op game.
 

Maxperson

Morkus from Orkus
This is just you grudging and not budging over semantics.
Eh, no. You don't get to play the incredibly absurd semantical game in declaring sharing with yourself, and then get on me when I scoff at it.
If you played "solo" D&D where you controlled 4 characters progressing through a dungeon you would wear two hats. When its the fighters turn and you decide they want to use a healing potion and run to the edge of the lake, that is being the player (as far as the traditional description of players/GMs in D&D goes)


When its the orcs turn and you decide that they are going to double move towards the fighter rather than double move towards the wizard, that is being the GM (as far as the traditional description of players/GMs in D&D goes).
No. It would be lame to try and make both decisions myself. Better to randomize the monster tactics to at least get some measure of unpredictability in there. Otherwise the boredom factor would just be magnified. The point of playing solo is for there not to be a DM. Just you and random dice to determine what and how for the "DM" side of things.
When the fighter wants to continue to flee from the orc, but doesn't want to leave his wizard friend behind so stays and puts up a last defence, even though you KNOW that the orc is afraid of wizards and would never attack him, then you are wearing the hat of an Impartial Neutral Arbiter (which does not exist in traditional D&D but does in a strange solo hybrid game).

You wear at least three different "hats" in a solo game, all of which have different goals, and its very fair to say you can be playing a collaborative game, despite the fact that you are doing so by yourself.

Its the same as if you were to play the boardgame Pandemic by yourself...it would still be considered a Co-op game.
More semantics.
 



I appreciate the replies. And I really am trying to understand.

I realize there are many definitions as to what D&D is, and it varies by person. But in my opinion, it seems to get bifurcated over and over when everyone starts travelling down their theoretical D&D definition road. Yet, the definition of D&D is known by everyone here - a tabletop role playing game in which players create characters that go on imaginary adventures in a fantasy setting, with the DM serving as referee and storyteller.

I can't really let the DM part leave my definition. I have read everyone's comments, including the article on a DM-less table. I tried to understand, but can't see your definition. Sorry.
 

Level Up!

An Advertisement

Advertisement4

Top