Dungeon Mastering as a Fine Art

[Hussar]

They don't play they game, they are running the game so others might better enjoy it.

Read more: http://www.enworld.org/forum/showth...-Mastering-as-a-Fine-Art/page11#ixzz33LuAVWjT

While I largely reject the absolutism in the rest of your post H&W, I do agree largely with this line. Something I noticed in the tag line on the back of the 5e DMG really caught my eye:

"Entertain and inspire your players" is, IMO, the best advice you could give to a DM.

 

[Ahnehnois]

Now that I don't agree with. Role playing is far, far too complicated for any single ruleset to get it 100% right 100% of the time. There will always be times when exceptions should be made. And, by and large that's built into the rules. Rule 0 isn't a bad thing. Again, it's a tool with very practical uses.

No, rule naught certainly isn't a bad thing.

But there's also the DM cheating idea, which is also potentially not a bad thing. As the DM cheating text I quoted above suggested, sometimes you want your players to believe that one thing is happening, even if what's actually happening is very different. In some campaigns, you want you players to believe that PCs might die, even if you've already decided that this simply won't happen, for example. Or, when you run the old classic "PCs get captured and then escape" storyline, you might want them to believe they had a chance at resisting capture, but in reality you might be setting the DC at their check result +1 because you just want to railroad them into that story. Certainly things that can be overdone, but I suspect most DMs do some of this stuff some of the time.

One thing about the rules is that the players are aware of them. I had one DM who asked us not to read the DMG for that reason, but in truth, most experienced players have either tried DMing or at least know what's in there. If you want to create genuine uncertainty or manipulate the players in certain ways, sometimes you need to go off the book even if there's nothing wrong with the book in and of itself.

***

And then there's houseruling. Sometimes it's done to fix problems, other times it's just about creating a specific nonstandard dynamic, changing or fleshing something out to fit a specific campaign or setting. It may or may not be indicative of problems with the original rules, but again it's probably something that most DMs do to some extent, and it's such a key part of a DM taking ownership of his own game that it's hard to say the existence of houserules speaks poorly of the published game.

 

[howandwhy99]

Entertain and inspire your players" is, IMO, the best advice you could give to a DM.

The last thing any DM should ever be is an entertainer. It's like a complete misunderstanding of games and why they are designed. A DM is a referee and in that respect needs to be fair first and last. Don't be cruel to your players, but don't favor them either. Don't make calls so the players like you better. That's a sure route to failure. Instead, work hard to be the best DM you can and you will gain the players' respect and thanks for a game well run.

 

[Agamon]

The last thing any DM should ever be is an entertainer. It's like a complete misunderstanding of games and why they are designed. A DM is a referee and in that respect needs to be fair first and last. Don't be cruel to your players, but don't favor them either. Don't make calls so the players like you better. That's a sure route to failure. Instead, work hard to be the best DM you can and you will gain the players' respect and thanks for a game well run.

I don't see being entertaining and inspiring and your (good) definition of the best DM you can be as mutually exclusive. Being entertaining and inspiring doesn't preclude handholding the players and favoring the PCs.

While the DM isn't the only person at the table that can make the game fun and interesting, he is the focal point of the players and their window into the world their PCs run around in. Making the world come alive and running fun and interesting NPC and combat encounters help to create the foundation of a good game.

 

[Lanefan]

We're basically on the same page I think
[MENTION=29398]Lanefan[/MENTION], PCs wanting to minimise risk is IME very much a product of certain gaming systems (chiefly oD&D and Call of Cthulhu). In systems where the PCs are more robust (Fate springs to mind) they tend to be a lot more "Full speed ahead and damn the torpedoes" because it works and gets bigger successes. It's one advantage of such systems.

And at the same time it's a flaw of such systems, depending on one's point of view...and this cycles right back around to the gamism-vs.-simulation thread from last week. Realism and-or simulation would strongly suggest minimizing risk wherever possible (no matter how robust you are, or think you are), where gamism prefers plowing ahead no matter what, looking for those bigger payoff moments.

It probably goes without saying (but yes, I'm going to say it anyway) that while I recognize that the second option may be fun, I far prefer the sort of game given by the first option.

Also I'd personally say that if the 4E books you picked up were the PHB/DMG/MM and the adventures you've seen the worst of the system rather than the best.

Perhaps, but after picking up one round of books that did nothing for me I wasn't any too keen on going out and buying a second round.

The last thing any DM should ever be is an entertainer. It's like a complete misunderstanding of games and why they are designed. A DM is a referee and in that respect needs to be fair first and last. Don't be cruel to your players, but don't favor them either. Don't make calls so the players like you better. That's a sure route to failure. Instead, work hard to be the best DM you can and you will gain the players' respect and thanks for a game well run.

I'm a DM, not a robot; and if I do nothing else right I'm at the least going to make bloody sure my players get a good show. In return I expect to be entertained by said players, and in that these days I am rarely if ever disappointed.

Lan-"let's hope 5e gets it right the first go around"-efan

 

[Ahnehnois]

The last thing any DM should ever be is an entertainer. It's like a complete misunderstanding of games and why they are designed. A DM is a referee and in that respect needs to be fair first and last. Don't be cruel to your players, but don't favor them either. Don't make calls so the players like you better. That's a sure route to failure. Instead, work hard to be the best DM you can and you will gain the players' respect and thanks for a game well run.

Setting aside that a DM does a lot more than a referee, have you ever looked at the way sports officials make calls? Some of them are definitely trying to provide entertainment value independently. Is every emphatic strikeout call a similar violation? There's also a strong case to be made that many of them alter the substance of their calls in ways that favor the spectators' interests (rather than strictly following the rules). Is that wrong?

 

[Hussar]

Setting aside that a DM does a lot more than a referee, have you ever looked at the way sports officials make calls? Some of them are definitely trying to provide entertainment value independently. Is every emphatic strikeout call a similar violation? There's also a strong case to be made that many of them alter the substance of their calls in ways that favor the spectators' interests (rather than strictly following the rules). Is that wrong?

Howandwhy99, you've just made me agree with Ahnehnois, and we don't agree on just about anything.

The idea that a DM is there simply as rules referee is ridiculous on its face. Referee's do not create content for the game. Referee's cannot actually directly impact either side in a game by telling them what to do or by changing scenario conditions.

A DM most certainly can do this. "The orcs ambush you on the road" means that I, the DM, set the initial conditions of the encounter. It's my decision, as DM, that this will be a combat encounter. Conversely, I can set initial conditions so that it might not be a combat encounter.

This is all far and away beyond what a referee can do in a game. As a referee, I don't get to tell the players that today they are going to play in the rain and that those adverse conditions will affect play in this and that manner. As a DM, I most certainly can. If I want it to rain today, it rains. If I want it to be clear, it's clear. Do you meet wandering monsters as you proceed across the jungles? Well, let's just see shall we?

DM's are content creators as well as rules adjudicators. Trying to reduce them down to simply refereeing misses the point. Who are they refereeing between? After all, in a game with a ref, you have two sides don't you? So, who are the two sides at your game table?

 

[Neonchameleon]

Now that I don't agree with. Role playing is far, far too complicated for any single ruleset to get it 100% right 100% of the time. There will always be times when exceptions should be made. And, by and large that's built into the rules. Rule 0 isn't a bad thing. Again, it's a tool with very practical uses.

There will be times. Anyone who thinks they get it right all the time (at any level) simply lacks self-analysis. But each time you need to it cuts what the players know about the gameworld and undermines immersion unless the rules were already undermining immersion.

Take the much maligned 3e Profession skills. They do what they are meant to do.

The thing is that what the rules were intended to do wasn't what they say they do. I can think of a dozen ways of doing them better - most of which don't defeat the worldbuilding 3.0 claimed to provide. And very few of them involve poaching skill points away from skills needed for survival.

Or, take the CR system. It works, kinda sorta. As a predictive tool, it's not terrible, but, not fantastic either. But, it's better than no system at all and, once the assumptions are factored in, a decent tool to help DM's create interesting encounters that don't swing too far. But, slavish adherence to the system won't make great adventures either.

The CR system is a guideline rather than a rule. The only rule part of it is the XP values. It's an incredibly wonky tool tbh and whether it's better than no system at all is a matter of taste.

And at the same time it's a flaw of such systems, depending on one's point of view...and this cycles right back around to the gamism-vs.-simulation thread from last week. Realism and-or simulation would strongly suggest minimizing risk wherever possible (no matter how robust you are, or think you are), where gamism prefers plowing ahead no matter what, looking for those bigger payoff moments.

It probably goes without saying (but yes, I'm going to say it anyway) that while I recognize that the second option may be fun, I far prefer the sort of game given by the first option.

And I agree that realism is a good thing ... in some games. Call of Cthulhu is great because of it. But to me using realism as a bedrock means that we need to remove dungeons and remove massively escalating hit points. And get rid of the free and easy magic that permeates the spellcasting classes. It also doesn't help that pre-3.X combat is padded sumo in a way that makes 4e seem fast - one minute combat rounds really take away any belief I have that the characters aren't ridiculously larger than life.

Perhaps, but after picking up one round of books that did nothing for me I wasn't any too keen on going out and buying a second round.

That I can understand. If I'd looked at 4E in 2008 not 2009 I might not like it half as much as I do The whole thing was shorted a year of playtesting because they threw the first Alpha out after a year (and deservedly so) and made the Bo9S from the usable pieces.

 

[howandwhy99]

The idea that a DM is there simply as rules referee is ridiculous on its face.

Let's not ridicule the actual hobby here. That is what a DM is and why they have rules to follow. They are a referee for the game, they are never a player. Like any referee they are never in a position to actually be a player.

Referee's do not create content for the game. Referee's cannot actually directly impact either side in a game by telling them what to do or by changing scenario conditions.

That's very true and true for DMs as well. There is no role in a game where one person gets to tell a player how they must play. DMs are referees in that they only convey the current set up. They don't get to choose to manipulate it like a player.

A DM most certainly can do this. "The orcs ambush you on the road" means that I, the DM, set the initial conditions of the encounter. It's my decision, as DM, that this will be a combat encounter. Conversely, I can set initial conditions so that it might not be a combat encounter.

Initial conditions, like any rule, is set before play begins. Improvising behind the screen robs players of being able to actually play a game. So... the orcs are on the road because the generation rules put them there. It is a combat because the players engaged with the orcs in combat (or perhaps their PCs couldn't get away). Either way it is up to the players to game the current design, not the DM.

As a referee, I don't get to tell the players that today they are going to play in the rain and that those adverse conditions will affect play in this and that manner. As a DM, I most certainly can. If I want it to rain today, it rains. If I want it to be clear, it's clear. Do you meet wandering monsters as you proceed across the jungles? Well, let's just see shall we?

Ironically wandering monsters are rolled, not made up by the DM. I don't see how that relates.

But what you are saying harms the role of DM so that they can no longer be runners of games. What you are suggesting is a deliberate interferer with a game. Someone who is outside the game rules, not playing, but moving pieces around and directly impacting the game so players can no longer partake in a game. To me, that's not just a bad role in a game, but a mockery of games. Rule Zero isn't a rule that should be in any game. "Quit following the rules" is quitting the game. It's something we don't want fellow players to do, but we definitely don't want referees to do. More than anyone they are there to keep the game fair. Why even have a DM in that case (or a game?) if you're not going to allow a gameable situation for players to play?

DM's are content creators as well as rules adjudicators. Trying to reduce them down to simply refereeing misses the point. Who are they refereeing between? After all, in a game with a ref, you have two sides don't you? So, who are the two sides at your game table?

Remember, the only stuff a DM may tell the players is rule content. This is not created by them after the game (campaign) begins. They are never content creators after the clock starts just as the referee in Mastermind never changes around the code behind the screen after that game starts.

And of course DMs are refereeing between the players. Every player is on his or her own side, that's one of the most important design elements of Dungeons & Dragons. Heck, of any cooperative game. The rules the DM uses are supposed to support, but never require the tactic of cooperation. This is what makes it a cooperative game. This keeps the players from feeling compelled to follow the group and not think for themselves.

 

[Neonchameleon]

Let's not ridicule the actual hobby here. That is what a DM is and why they have rules to follow. They are a referee for the game, they are never a player. Like any referee they are never in a position to actually be a player.

That's very true and true for DMs as well. There is no role in a game where one person gets to tell a player how they must play. DMs are referees in that they only convey the current set up. They don't get to choose to manipulate it like a player.

Initial conditions, like any rule, is set before play begins. Improvising behind the screen robs players of being able to actually play a game.

Would you please stop? Your approach to RPG rules represents one tiny fraction of RPGers, and one that so far as I am aware does not have significant numbers outside The Gaming Den. This doesn't make it invalid - it just means that it is an extreme minority opinion.

Off the top of my head:
The Short Primer for Old School Games rejects the idea of rules rather than rulings. That's Matt Finch - who wrote Castles & Crusades, OSRIC v 1.0, and Swords and Wizardry. In short all those games are based on a rejection of your role of the DM. So, for that matter is Flame Princess and its refusal to have any monster manual, and Vornheim (the single best part of that line and a book I recommend to everyone) stands as a straight up rejection of your ideas. There is some presence in what you preach among the OSR - but it is not terribly influential there.

Despite 3.X explicitely telling the DM to overrule the rules where necessary, with Rule Zero, the largest group of online people practicing what you preach is as far as I am aware The Gaming Den and its group of 3.5 fans. Pathfinder stands as another rejection to your playstyle with all the advice given for that game.

4E, and for that matter 2E are also rejections of what you are advocating with encounter based play (a single scan of the 2E DMG should tell you this).

White Wolf/World of Darkness? The GM is straight up called The Storyteller. I have my issues with White Wolf because of this. But it's about as clear cut a rejection of what you are advocating as is possible. Indeed a big inspiration behind The Forge and Story-games is that there was too much GM authority and writing things like that - it was a rejection of exactly how far Storyteller was from your playstyle of choice.

Fate? Don't make me laugh. The GM frames scenes in Fate. And offers straight up compels.

Indeed outside the bounds of D&D I'm trying to think of a single RPG that does things the way you indicate. Possibly Harnmaster? Inside the bounds of D&D what you are advocating is a fragment within the OSR (I don't know how big because I don't know the OSR well at all) and a small fragment within the 3.5 community, obviously rejected by other 3.5 players such as Ahnehosis.

That you play the way you choose to is fine as long as you and the rest of your group has fun with it. But please stop trying to state your minority positions are "the hobby". They aren't. They are minority positions within subsets of the hobby. And there are good reasons to do things the way you indicate, so by all means keep advocating them. But there are reasons to do things in other ways and as a general rule the majority of the hobby chooses other ways. You do not get to speak for the hobby, especially not when you have beliefs so far outside the mainstream.