Dungeon Mastering as a Fine Art

[Ahnehnois]

I imagine the sigh is because Ahn argues in favor of this style of play to the point where he claims that this is the one true way of playing because of toss away lines like this appear in most dmg's.

The sigh is because I've seen it claimed that this line of text doesn't exist. I wouldn't call that a "throw away line" but regardless of what descriptors one attaches to it, it definitely exists.

The fact that some of us reject this as railroading and think this is generally terrible advice has caused some disagreement.

Whether or not it's railroading is somewhat tangential. The question is whether it's legitimate for the DM to do it at all. The merits of doing it in any particular context are a discrete issue.

Rule Zero is basically the idea that at some level, once the social contract is in place, it's generally deferred to the GM to determine the baseline "Here's what we've agreed." But this doesn't mean in any way that the players can't later choose to disagree, negotiate, or opt out entirely to that unstated contract.

That's a good way of looking at it; as I described elsewhere, it can be seen simultaneously as a dictatorship and a representative democracy. The players don't have much control over the game itself, but they have a lot of control over on what terms they chose to play it.

 

[Neonchameleon]

The sigh is because I've seen it claimed that this line of text doesn't exist. I wouldn't call that a "throw away line" but regardless of what descriptors one attaches to it, it definitely exists.

Out of curiosity, who by (other than [MENTION=3192]howandwhy99[/MENTION] ?) Because I don't think that anyone denies that Rule Zero exists. The DM has the right to overrule any rule in the game, and I have the right to eat nothing but chilli for three days before gaming. The claim is that invoking that right is something that should only be done under special circumstances (like the Queen's/Governor General's right to dissolve the Australian parliament).

 

[Ruin Explorer]

That's a good way of looking at it; as I described elsewhere, it can be seen simultaneously as a dictatorship and a representative democracy. The players don't have much control over the game itself, but they have a lot of control over on what terms they chose to play it.

I'd question whether "they don't have much control over the game itself" was really true, personally. I think that's something that is very specific to the group and DM and so on. In more sandbox-style games, the players tend to exercise absolutely vast control over the game itself, in terms of what the game is about, what areas get focused on, and so on - they exercise considerably more control than the DM, in that sense, because if they don't want to go into the horrible dungeon of terror, and instead want to spend their time exploring overland, or setting up and guarding trade caravans, or whatever, then that is what the game is about - no matter than the DM spent days designing the horrible dungeon of terror.

On the flipside, if the players are keen to follow the DM's plot threads, and keen to be lead (as many are), in a more linear-narrative-style of game, then the DM has huge control over the focus of the game, it's themes, and so on.

Regarding the whole "DM can override anything" deal - this is problematic generally when the DM decides to override things in order to force the PCs into something that the players weren't interested in, or that wasn't a natural/logical outcome of the situation they were in.

Personally I think that, talking of DM advice the whole "You can override the rules!" bit should be kind of the last thing DMs learn - not "Rule 0", not introduced immediately, but "The Final Rule", after they've mastered all the basics, learned what they SHOULD be doing. Also, I really feel like it should be accompanied with more of a stern "With great power comes great responsibility!" speech. Because, really, it does!

(I say this particularly because virtually every abuse of "BECAUSE I'M THE DM, THAT'S WHY!", including my own, has come down to the DM being somewhat juvenile/emotional, and putting their personal desires ahead of what works for the game, or what the group clearly sees as right - for example, refusing to let a favourite NPC die (or even appear to die, after all, in D&D, dead isn't dead!) despite the dice saying it is so, or introducing bullying GMPCs to push the PCs on to the path the DM wants, because he is frustrated with the tack they are taking, etc. etc.)

 

[Emerikol]

Finally I believe that saying the hobby should stick to its roots makes about as much sense as saying that we should all drive round in cars that predate the Ford Model T. Not that I have anything against classic car enthusiasts.

And here is where you lost me. If I said that McDonald's should stick with hamburgers instead of chicken, your point would not apply. Playstyles are not technology. The "new" way is not better for many people. It's a new flavor. Better for some and not better for others. To this day a large chunk of the D&D/PF playerbase enjoy games predicated on old school approaches. It is inevitable with the growth in popularity of a game that new styles will arise and that is fine. It's only not fine when people like yourself imply that the old styles are out of date.

I get that some fraction of the playerbase has adopted some radically different approaches to roleplaying. I don't have a problem with that fact. Going around claiming though that you've found a universally more advanced and superior way of playing is not okay in my book. Personally I think my way is best but that's because it's most fun for me. I'm not presumptuous enough to claim my own tastes represent everyone elses. We are no tiny minority though.

[MENTION=11944]oth[/MENTION]ers
I believe D&D has always supported Rule 0. I wouldn't DM a group where rule 0 was not in force. I believe the way the DM chooses to exercise rule 0 will dictate the style of game.

While I agree that DMs can choose to modify any roll at any time, I also realize that keeping your world consistent is also important. Personally I find I prefer to avoid messing with the dice. I also run sandbox games where players do what they want. That has nothing to do with DMs and rule 0.

 

[Ahnehnois]

IIn more sandbox-style games, the players tend to exercise absolutely vast control over the game itself, in terms of what the game is about, what areas get focused on, and so on - they exercise considerably more control than the DM, in that sense, because if they don't want to go into the horrible dungeon of terror, and instead want to spend their time exploring overland, or setting up and guarding trade caravans, or whatever, then that is what the game is about - no matter than the DM spent days designing the horrible dungeon of terror.

I don't see it that way at all. A more structured plot-driven game can be written explicitly to set up meaningful choice points for players. With a more sandbox-y game, the DM has to make a lot of stuff up on the spot. The more off the beaten path the players go, what changes is that they're tapping into the DM in real time vs in advance.

The amount of influence the players have on the actual course of events is completely separate.

I've seen it where intricately pre-plotted games are built off of the PC backstories and driven by their choices, and I've seen it where open-ended improvisation leaves the players completely out of things.

Personally I think that, talking of DM advice the whole "You can override the rules!" bit should be kind of the last thing DMs learn - not "Rule 0", not introduced immediately, but "The Final Rule", after they've mastered all the basics, learned what they SHOULD be doing. Also, I really feel like it should be accompanied with more of a stern "With great power comes great responsibility!" speech. Because, really, it does!

It does. However, I think that to be a good DM, you first have to learn how to do it without any rules whatsoever.

I recall one game where we met for the first session, the DM began laying down some narration about Greyhawk, and within a minute, someone was riffing off it and stepping in with interlude like "and the most common bird in Greyhawk is...". Things went downhill from there.

I suspect it's underrated here because most of us are already DMs who have some level of competence, but the first bar you have to get over is you have to be able to do improvised freeform narration. You have to be the only one talking, you have to be the voice of authority, and you have to make stuff up, and that stuff (gulp) becomes the substance of the game. For non-DM's that's really hard!

To me, adding in the rules is advanced DMing. First getting an idea of how they were built and the general principles, and eventually getting to the point of understanding how to use them. What the number should be, when to ask for a roll, how to manage player expectations.

I say this particularly because virtually every abuse of "BECAUSE I'M THE DM, THAT'S WHY!", including my own, has come down to the DM being somewhat juvenile/emotional, and putting their personal desires ahead of what works for the game, or what the group clearly sees as right

All of which is true, and which, to my way of thinking is why it's important for the DM to take responsibility and not hide behind rules. If a PC dies, the DM is responsible, regardless of whether the character was felled by a lucky crit, the apocryphal falling rocks of DM dictation, or the player's own foolishness. Because the DM is responsible for everything. The sooner everyone understands this, the sooner he can be held accountable.

 

[Neonchameleon]

And here is where you lost me. If I said that McDonald's should stick with hamburgers instead of chicken, your point would not apply. Playstyles are not technology. The "new" way is not better for many people. It's a new flavor. Better for some and not better for others. To this day a large chunk of the D&D/PF playerbase enjoy games predicated on old school approaches. It is inevitable with the growth in popularity of a game that new styles will arise and that is fine. It's only not fine when people like yourself imply that the old styles are out of date.

I get that some fraction of the playerbase has adopted some radically different approaches to roleplaying. I don't have a problem with that fact.

Then we are on the same page here. I'm objecting forcefully here to someone who does think that there is One True Way (and one that doesn't take into account the majority of old school approaches as well as any new school at that). There is not one old way and one new way, but a plethora of both. And all are welcome. Claiming one single old school method (or one single method from any source) is the sum total of the hobby is what I am objecting to here.

 

[Agamon]

Giving a DM more tools and then pronouncing that the DM can use those tools for nefarious purposes really doesn't fly when they can also use them to make the game better. As I said before, a bad DM is going to run a bad game, and yes, the more tools you give him, the worse it will be. But confining a good DM will also confine a good game.

A person can use fire to build and or use fire to destroy, that doesn't make fire a good or bad thing. Sadly, most people are not self-aware enough to know whether they are poor DMs, so advice saying, "If you suck, don't do this," doesn't work.

 

[Ruin Explorer]

Giving a DM more tools and then pronouncing that the DM can use those tools for nefarious purposes really doesn't fly when they can also use them to make the game better. As I said before, a bad DM is going to run a bad game, and yes, the more tools you give him, the worse it will be. But confining a good DM will also confine a good game.

A person can use fire to build and or use fire to destroy, that doesn't make fire a good or bad thing. Sadly, most people are not self-aware enough to know whether they are poor DMs, so advice saying, "If you suck, don't do this," doesn't work.

Using the fire analogy, the sensible thing to do is to strongly suggest that most people limit themselves to reasonably-sized fires in sensible places, no? Thus with DM tools one would want to say "be really bloody careful with this!", which most editions fail to.

Also, have you, as a DM, ever, in actual reality, been confined by lack of DM tools to the point where your game meaningfully suffered? I ask because I sure haven't! Seems like such a far-fetched problem.

 

[Agamon]

Using the fire analogy, the sensible thing to do is to strongly suggest that most people limit themselves to reasonably-sized fires in sensible places, no? Thus with DM tools one would want to say "be really bloody careful with this!", which most editions fail to.

Fair enough, bad analogy. One is loss of life and property, the other is a game.

Also, have you, as a DM, ever, in actual reality, been confined by lack of DM tools to the point where your game meaningfully suffered? I ask because I sure haven't! Seems like such a far-fetched problem.

Well, no, I haven't...thanks to the advice past DMGs have failed to give me.

 

[Ruin Explorer]

Fair enough, bad analogy. One is loss of life and property, the other is a game.

Sure, but a game can be destroyed by bad DMing as surely as a house by fire.

So good analogy, imo.