D&D General DM's: How transparent are you with game mechanics "in world?"

[Maxperson]

You just keep repeating yourself, with no explanation of why I am wrong except that the worst of the worst will never change. I'm not talking about the worst of the worst. I'm not talking about the guy who gleefully giggles as he shreds your character sheet in front of you. You're right, that guy will never change. But how did he get that way and can we do anything to change that path and stop him from getting to that point?

Abused as a kid, he's a sociopath, and other similar things. There's nothing you can do with D&D rules.

You seem to take the approach that that individual is just fundamentally broken and nothing caused it. I disagree.

Wow. You just took a very large leap with no information again. We've not discussed how society and family fail these people. We've only been discussing D&D rules, which aren't going to stop them.

And I think your response to the idea of setting up a vote for a homebrew rule really highlights the issue that you are ignoring. You see, if the DM ignores the vote and does it anyways... the game doesn't continue. It is the same effect practically, the game ends and the players move on, but there is a difference. Because it is more likely that ALL the players leave, at once. Because the players have exercised their right to have their voices heard, and the DM ignored them. It became very stark. Whereas in the current set-up, many people would argue that the player's don't have the right to question the DM, to question their rulings. So each individual player has to decide when the flags have been raised and it is time to bail, which potentially they won't, because they may have another player they don't want to abandon to a bad DM.

This is the best argument you've put forward so far. However, I'm not yet convinced by it. I agree that it is more likely that they would all leave at once, but I'm not sure how much more likely it would be and if that increase is worth the damage to the tool for the vast majority of DMs who do not abuse their authority.

Again, just like I have a dozen times. I'm not naive enough to think that changes will remove all abuses from all games for all time. But they can put us in a place that is better than we are, and maybe prevent future abuses by not setting up a power dynamic that is fundamentally untenable. No one actually exercises the full authority of the DM, because we don't need it. We don't need unlimited power to run the game. So why do we have it? You have never once made an argument that the ultimate power of the DM is a good thing, you have only claimed it is a thing. And I think it is because you realize that all of the good a DM can do is in a very small portion of that power.

It's not that simple, though. You(general you) have to weigh whether the damage you are doing to the tool is outweighed by the few(relatively) groups that would have increased benefit from the change.

Possibly, but I also have never once heard people in those systems praise the Storyteller or the GM position as one of unfettered power with the ability to do anything. That seems uniquely DnD. And I question why, because it doesn't actually serve a purpose.

Not possibly. It happened.

You are also wrong with the declaration that it doesn't serve a purpose. The unfettered fiat ability has the purpose of allowing the DM the freedom to really make the game better for his group. To tailor it to their needs and to ditch portions of the game rules that interfere with the group's enjoyment of the game.

Many are the times where a game rule that was usually a good one, suddenly didn't make sense in an unusual situation and I had to toss it on the fly and come up with something of my own. To have to stop the action in order to discuss the situation, proposed a new rule, receive counter proposals, and then vote on a replacement would destroy the session. It's much better for the DM to just have the authority to just make a ruling and quickly move on with the fun.

I have actually played and own games where the idea of changing the characters mid-scene is seen as horrible. Where the role is "Chief Editor" (it is a comic book conceit) and the expectation is very much that by the time the players are in the scene, it is relatively locked. You shouldn't rewrite the abilities of the boss on the fly. You can't really alter much else than the boss, or fudge anything, simply because of how the various pieces work.

The game runs great. It is immensely fun, immensely creative, and easily 75% of the power is vested in the players. IT even recommends that when a narrative consequence happens in the story, that the player of that character is the one who offers what that consequence is. And the creators of the game, who have run it at cons for hundreds of players for years now (I think 4 years, multiple cons worldwide, running demos every day) have reported that often the players give themselves more debilitating consequences than the Editor would have.

Sure. I've never disputed that there aren't other ways to game, or that those games don't work for certain people. I don't think I'd enjoy that kind of game as a player, though, at least not for longer than a one shot to try it out.

So, it can be done. Without ruining the game. So why not?

The same reason you don't force trucks on every car owner. Sure trucks are fun and enjoyable for those that like them, but there are a lot of us who don't like trucks and don't want to drive one.

Forcing those rules you just described above on everyone is going to have a negative effect on a whole lot of us. We aren't playing those sorts of games right now for reasons, including we don't like them.

And you were wrong. I accused MYSELF of POTENTIALLY being mistaken. Because I didn't experience his life.

Here is what you said.

In fact, I think @Lyxen is about the only person I've seen on these forums who has seemed to not have had expeirenced a truly bad DM. And that is probably wrong, they probably have. So it is clearly common enough that people are aware of the issue.

There is no self accusation that you are potentially mistaken because of not experiencing his life. You tossed doubt on what he said from the get go with "who has seemed not to have expeirenced(sic) a truly bad DM." and then went into telling us that he was probably wrong about his own experiences, indicating that you felt you know his experiences better than he does.

 

[Maxperson]

In order to have even an average game you must have a DM that is smart, wise and creative. And yes, 99% of the time they are smarter, wiser, more creative and all the rest than the players. That IS why they ARE the DM in the first place.

This is wrong. They are the DM in the first place, because they wanted the responsibility and no one else did. It doesn't take smarts, wisdom or creativity for that. I've been in many games where the DM was not smarter or wiser than the players, or even some of the players.

 

[Maxperson]

I wasn't aware of this. I own Tasha's but at most I have skimmed it.

I will say though, putting it in a book released 6 years after the DMG isn't exactly great. It hasn't even been out a year yet, and if the advice in it is as good as you say, then it should be moved the DMG and released in the core, not in a book many DMs ban because the only thing in it anyone talks about are the options that increase player power and the DMs don't want that power creep.

Read the Session 0 portion of the Dungeon Master's Tools section. It starts on page 139.

 

[J.Quondam]

I wasn't aware of this. I own Tasha's but at most I have skimmed it.

I will say though, putting it in a book released 6 years after the DMG isn't exactly great. It hasn't even been out a year yet, and if the advice in it is as good as you say, then it should be moved the DMG and released in the core, not in a book many DMs ban because the only thing in it anyone talks about are the options that increase player power and the DMs don't want that power creep.

Criminy. But of course that's not good enough for you. (I mean nothing is, apparently, lol!)

You realize that not everything happens all at once, right? Things change over time as society, tastes, and audience change. And companies like WotC are inherently conservative and often tone-deaf; and have business considerations to account for. So the fact that this stuff appears in official pubs at all is a good sign, a sign that the company is catching up. Maybe it's not moving fast enough for you personally, but it is moving. That's not a bad thing. And meanwhile, that information is now officially out there, in a very popular publican discussed far and wide on the internet, acknowledged by tons of gamers, 3pps, streamers, and the like.

And in fact, as has already been said many times in many ways, those ideals have always been out there in some form or another, even if you personally have had a few bad experiences These notions have been happily evolving upward along with the rest of society, practiced unofficially by thousands of gamers over decades. Which is great! Because it shows us what we've always known: that the game follows the gamers, not the other way round.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

It is tagged D&D, and the OP used 5e as their example. It’s a thread about D&D.

He objected to my post on the basis of an argument which only works if you want to talk about nothing but 5e. If he wants to complain because I use a 4e example or comparison then that's fine, in a thread tagged for '5e', but it is a general thread, so it seems my post was perfectly in line with that. You may disagree with it, but you cannot imply it was somehow improper.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

He objected to my post on the basis of an argument which only works if you want to talk about nothing but 5e. If he wants to complain because I use a 4e example or comparison then that's fine, in a thread tagged for '5e', but it is a general thread, so it seems my post was perfectly in line with that. You may disagree with it, but you cannot imply it was somehow improper.

I didn’t imply any such thing. You may have forgot what I even replied to. It was the post wherein you quoted me in order to talk down to me about how D&D focused you think my perspective is.

 

[Ovinomancer]

Seems relevant (<3 minute video):

 

[Chaosmancer]

Abused as a kid, he's a sociopath, and other similar things. There's nothing you can do with D&D rules.

Wow. So, you think people are only Bad DMs if they have suffered abuse and are neurally divergent. That is really telling. I don't think someone needs therapy and a diagnosis to just be an naughty word who got the wrong paradigm in his head. It can be way simpler than that.

Wow. You just took a very large leap with no information again. We've not discussed how society and family fail these people. We've only been discussing D&D rules, which aren't going to stop them.

No, you are supporting my main thrust here. You only think a Bad DM can come from someone who has been failed by society, abused, needing mental health assitance and therapy. This is an extreme step. Not everyone who lords over small bits of power is a sociopath who was abused as a child.

No wonder you think nothing can change, you view any issue with the DM as a mental health issue.

This is the best argument you've put forward so far. However, I'm not yet convinced by it. I agree that it is more likely that they would all leave at once, but I'm not sure how much more likely it would be and if that increase is worth the damage to the tool for the vast majority of DMs who do not abuse their authority.


It's not that simple, though. You(general you) have to weigh whether the damage you are doing to the tool is outweighed by the few(relatively) groups that would have increased benefit from the change.

What damage? I've asked this a few times and yet you've never explained what harm I am doing to your ability to run the game if you are no longer the sole lord and master, unquestioned and unchallenged.

So again, setting it up so that the DM should discuss with their players before making changes that directly affect the characters and their abilities. That is a proposed change. How is this doing damage to your ability to run the game?

Not possibly. It happened.

UGH

Possibly [it is because you hear less about it, because far fewer people play those systems.]

So, no, it didn't happen. Because you can't have "this result may be because of fewer people playing the system so news about it is less frequent" happen. Obviously I didn't mean that "possibly Maxperson is telling the truth"

You are also wrong with the declaration that it doesn't serve a purpose. The unfettered fiat ability has the purpose of allowing the DM the freedom to really make the game better for his group. To tailor it to their needs and to ditch portions of the game rules that interfere with the group's enjoyment of the game.

Many are the times where a game rule that was usually a good one, suddenly didn't make sense in an unusual situation and I had to toss it on the fly and come up with something of my own. To have to stop the action in order to discuss the situation, proposed a new rule, receive counter proposals, and then vote on a replacement would destroy the session. It's much better for the DM to just have the authority to just make a ruling and quickly move on with the fun.

I disagree. First of all, you can still tailor the game and ditch portions of the rules that interfere with the group's enjoyment without unfettered fiat.

And, if you just do a thing without explanation, that breaks a well-established rule, then the players could easily get confused. And it doesn't "destroy the session" to step back, and propose a solution to an obvious problem. Because the players are going to know the rule isn't making sense, so you don't need to explain it. and if you do... then maybe it is best to explain it, because the players aren't on the same page. Or maybe they are expecting the thing that doesn't make sense to you, and you are harming their plans by just changing it with no warning or discussion.

Sure. I've never disputed that there aren't other ways to game, or that those games don't work for certain people. I don't think I'd enjoy that kind of game as a player, though, at least not for longer than a one shot to try it out.

And this isn't about your personal enjoyment, is it? It is about the role of the DM. And if you, as a DM, require unfettered authority as part of your enjoyment of the game...

The same reason you don't force trucks on every car owner. Sure trucks are fun and enjoyable for those that like them, but there are a lot of us who don't like trucks and don't want to drive one.

Forcing those rules you just described above on everyone is going to have a negative effect on a whole lot of us. We aren't playing those sorts of games right now for reasons, including we don't like them.

And how dare the designers stop producing 4e and force 5e upon people. Plenty of people liked 5e, and they weren't playing a game like 5e for many reasons.

Games evolve. And your personal preferences to have unfettered authority isn't what we are disucssing.

Here is what you said.


There is no self accusation that you are potentially mistaken because of not experiencing his life. You tossed doubt on what he said from the get go with "who has seemed not to have expeirenced(sic) a truly bad DM." and then went into telling us that he was probably wrong about his own experiences, indicating that you felt you know his experiences better than he does.

So, let me get this straight. I have twice now clarified myself, recognizing that my phrasing was not perfect. You are telling me I am wrong about my own intentions, and that you are correct in accusing me of accusing someone of being wrong about their own experiences, and that I felt I knew them better than he did himself.

Well, I couldn't write a more ridiculously ironic situation if I tried. Truly, life is stranger than fiction. You are convinced that you know my intentions better than me, and that I was acting inappropriately in acting like I knew Lyxen's intentions better than him.

Read the Session 0 portion of the Dungeon Master's Tools section. It starts on page 139.

Does it do anything other than give unfettered power to the DM? If it does, then it is relevant. If not, then I don't see your point.

 

[Chaosmancer]

Criminy. But of course that's not good enough for you. (I mean nothing is, apparently, lol!)

You realize that not everything happens all at once, right? Things change over time as society, tastes, and audience change. And companies like WotC are inherently conservative and often tone-deaf; and have business considerations to account for. So the fact that this stuff appears in official pubs at all is a good sign, a sign that the company is catching up. Maybe it's not moving fast enough for you personally, but it is moving. That's not a bad thing. And meanwhile, that information is now officially out there, in a very popular publican discussed far and wide on the internet, acknowledged by tons of gamers, 3pps, streamers, and the like.

And in fact, as has already been said many times in many ways, those ideals have always been out there in some form or another, even if you personally have had a few bad experiences These notions have been happily evolving upward along with the rest of society, practiced unofficially by thousands of gamers over decades. Which is great! Because it shows us what we've always known: that the game follows the gamers, not the other way round.

I never said it wasn't a step in the right direction, only that it isn't the last step in the right direction. I mean criminy, you yourself are acknowledging that this is a process. Advocating for the next step of the process, and saying "while this is better than nothing, we could maybe get this official information in a place where more people will access it" isn't some revolutionary cry to tear it all down.

I haven't even had a chance to read the material, and only saying "maybe it should be in the core so all DMs can see it" suddenly makes it not good enough for me?

 

[Maxperson]

Wow. So, you think people are only Bad DMs if they have suffered abuse and are neurally divergent. That is really telling. I don't think someone needs therapy and a diagnosis to just be an naughty word who got the wrong paradigm in his head. It can be way simpler than that.

It takes a special kind of person to deliberately screw over his players.

No wonder you think nothing can change, you view any issue with the DM as a mental health issue.

I don't view DMs who make mistakes or misunderstand rules as bad the way you do.

What damage? I've asked this a few times and yet you've never explained what harm I am doing to your ability to run the game if you are no longer the sole lord and master, unquestioned and unchallenged.

If you alter the tool, you are harming that tool as I use it. My game uses the tool as it currently is.

I disagree. First of all, you can still tailor the game and ditch portions of the rules that interfere with the group's enjoyment without unfettered fiat.

You can disagree all you want. My game doesn't run the same without it. End of story.

And, if you just do a thing without explanation, that breaks a well-established rule, then the players could easily get confused. And it doesn't "destroy the session" to step back, and propose a solution to an obvious problem. Because the players are going to know the rule isn't making sense, so you don't need to explain it. and if you do... then maybe it is best to explain it, because the players aren't on the same page. Or maybe they are expecting the thing that doesn't make sense to you, and you are harming their plans by just changing it with no warning or discussion.

Why are you inventing "without explanation?" Everything that follows that invention is wrong as a response to what I said, because I never said or implied that I wouldn't give a quick explanation of my reasoning to the players. I said that stopping for a whole discussion and voting session ruins the game.

And this isn't about your personal enjoyment, is it?

Of course it is. Everyone including the DM has to get personal enjoyment out of the game or it isn't worth playing.

Does it do anything other than give unfettered power to the DM? If it does, then it is relevant. If not, then I don't see your point.

Read it.