Dungeon Mastering as a Fine Art

[Agamon]

[MENTION=3192]howandwhy99[/MENTION] While I agree that the role of the DM as you see it is a viable way to play the game, it certainly isn't the only way.

In fact, I'd argue it's very viable, seeing as that's exactly how computer AI runs video game RPGs. Impartial with rules and scenario unchanging once the game begins.

I love the Bethesda and BioWare RPGs, fun stuff. But the reason I like TTRPGs is that the one running the game isn't a limited computer AI, but a human being. Creativity and imagination of the GM is what makes TTRPGs fun, in my opinion.

If my job as a GM is just following a bunch of IF/THEN statements, I'd grow bored very quickly.

 

[howandwhy99]

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.

Are you compelled to respond to my posts? No, of course not. And can we agree to disagree about what Dungeons & Dragons and the hobby of role playing games actually are? I hope so. Is there an entire segment of the hobby not fooled into storygames by the current conflating of narrative theory as game theory, one that instead studies what RPGs actually are and why they have been designed so for decades? Undoubtedly. But dismissing opinions you don't like as extreme minority opinions is the stifling of ideas outside your self made status quo. Please stop doing that. Please stop dogpiling posters on this board who don't see RPGs as having anything to do with The Big Model or storytelling. Just because we don't agree with you doesn't make what you do wrong any more than what we do. They are simply very different hobbies. And if you want others to stop posting their definitions of what RPGs actually are, stop doing so yourself.

EDIT: Seeing as this a forum for talking about RPGs I don't expect you or anyone else to do the last.

 

[Neonchameleon]

Are you compelled to respond to my posts? No, of course not. And can we agree to disagree about what Dungeons & Dragons and the hobby of role playing games actually are? I hope so. Is there an entire segment of the hobby not fooled into storygames by the current conflating of narrative theory as game theory, one that instead studies what RPGs actually are and why they have been designed so for decades? Undoubtedly. But dismissing opinions you don't like as extreme minority opinions is the stifling of ideas outside your self made status quo. Please stop doing that. Please stop dogpiling posters on this board who don't see RPGs as having anything to do with The Big Model or storytelling. Just because we don't agree with you doesn't make what you do wrong any more than what we do. They are simply very different hobbies. And if you want others to stop posting their definitions of what RPGs actually are, stop doing so yourself.

I'm no more compelled to respond to your posts than you are to mine. But I do not like leaving statements that are flatly, objectively incorrect unchallenged. Your statements about the role of the DM are in flat contradiction to every DMG from 2E onwards. Are you willing to therefore say that 2E with its encounter based play model wasn't D&D and neither was 3.0, 3.5, 4E, or even Pathfinder? And that the Rulings not Rules ethos advocated by the Old School Primer is against the spirit of D&D?

And for the record, as I said in the previous thread, I think the Big Model as it ended up is utterly useless. All the final version says is "Different groups do things different ways and here are a few contributing factors."

I'm also not trying to throw anyone out of this hobby. Adapt a "Live and let live" policy, and instead of saying "You must do things this way" say "I think that this is the best way to do things because..." and I'll be less inclined to reply negatively to your posts.

 

[howandwhy99]

[MENTION=3192]howandwhy99[/MENTION] While I agree that the role of the DM as you see it is a viable way to play the game, it certainly isn't the only way.

In fact, I'd argue it's very viable, seeing as that's exactly how computer AI runs video game RPGs. Impartial with rules and scenario unchanging once the game begins.

I love the Bethesda and BioWare RPGs, fun stuff. But the reason I like TTRPGs is that the one running the game isn't a limited computer AI, but a human being. Creativity and imagination of the GM is what makes TTRPGs fun, in my opinion.

If my job as a GM is just following a bunch of IF/THEN statements, I'd grow bored very quickly.

Are you into wargames or the boardgaming community at all? My original post a page or two back is how I see DMing as defined for a least a couple decades or more. At wargames the DM would be the one measuring the battlefield and facing of the tanks. Tallying off points scored and hiding any of the map for fog of war. Board gamers sometimes do this too, have someone who knows the rules very well, sets up the board, can help new players understand the options they have clarifying any confusion, and speed up play. And of course ensure the trusted continuity of the game which is paramount in any actual game.

D&D doesn't use syllogistic logic per se, though like any game it is a pattern. It has game rules that reference a game board. One aspect of good rules design is to simplify how many rules exist and the tracking of all their elements to make the DM's job easier without removing the complexity so necessary for games to maintain their challenge. I think early D&D rule designers understood this inherently. They came from a very rigorous and hard-nosed gaming community already. That they ended up doing as DMs what most designers do when creating games meant their skills directly fed into how good at DMing they were.

 

[howandwhy99]

SNIP

Yes to those questions. Few people who lived in the 90s thought RPGs were being well designed in most respects.

I'm also not trying to throw anyone out of this hobby. Adapt a "Live and let live" policy, and instead of saying "You must do things this way" say "I think that this is the best way to do things because..." and I'll be less inclined to reply negatively to your posts.

Okay, append all my posts as "I think this is the way the game was actually designed to support play and currently is my best understanding of why the rules are what they are."

Btw, what behavior do you think is directly interfering to games?

EDIT: Also, I still can't find anything on The Gaming Den to make me think they aren't just talking about 3e. What are you seeing there?

 

[Agamon]

Are you into wargames or the boardgaming community at all? My original post a page or two back is how I see DMing as defined for a least a couple decades or more. At wargames the DM would be the one measuring the battlefield and facing of the tanks. Tallying off points scored and hiding any of the map for fog of war. Board gamers sometimes do this too, have someone who knows the rules very well, sets up the board, can help new players understand the options they have clarifying any confusion, and speed up play. And of course ensure the trusted continuity of the game which is paramount in any actual game.

I am a board gamer, and yes, this is something I see a lot at conventions where games are taught to large groups of new players. At a smaller table, the "host player" is most often also just a player. This isn't a particularly fun or necessary job, as the social contract dictates that all players play by the rules, an overseer is often unnecessary.

D&D doesn't use syllogistic logic per se, though like any game it is a pattern. It has game rules that reference a game board. One aspect of good rules design is to simplify how many rules exist and the tracking of all their elements to make the DM's job easier without removing the complexity so necessary for games to maintain their challenge. I think early D&D rule designers understood this inherently. They came from a very rigorous and hard-nosed gaming community already. That they ended up doing as DMs what most designers do when creating games meant their skills directly fed into how good at DMing they were.

Yes, back in the early and mid 70's, this fledgling hobby was trying to find its own ground. Many of the very early players were pulled from the wargaming ranks, and this, of course, very much informed the style of play.

But as the hobby has evolved over the years, it has incorporated many different styles of play. GM as referee, GM as storyweaver (as opposed to storyteller; go write a book if you want to tell a story), GM as moderator, etc. How the game is played depends on the group and what they want out of the game, and if everyone is having fun, you're doing it right.

 

[Savage Wombat]

I don't see why so many people seem to disregard the DM's role as a player of the game. I mean, it is a game, right? The point is for all the participants to have fun? The DM has a different role than the players, but the intent is still for him to enjoy participating in the activity. He's not a coach, or a scorekeeper, he's a player who plays the game differently.

If some people enjoy playing D&D by being completely neutral arbiters of rules while letting the other players completely control the game, more power to them - but I suspect that's not what most DMs enjoy.

 

[Neonchameleon]

Yes to those questions. Few people who lived in the 90s thought RPGs were being well designed in most respects.

On this we actually agree. The 90s were in my opinion the nadir of game design. The two biggest games of the 90s, 2E AD&D and WoD, both officially advocated that you routinely ignored the rules in order to obtain the result you want and to me that's anathema to good game design. (My favourite game at the time was GURPS).

Where we disagree is that to me at least there is a vast difference between saying "That game is not very well designed" and "That is not an RPG". Especially when they were sold as RPGs, marketed as RPGs, and both 2E and the WoD were accepted by almost all RPG players as RPGs. There is no central RPG Commission that sits down and determines what an RPG is - and if there were it would have been TSR, who was publishing 2E as an RPG. And to me any definition of RPGs that pushes out 90%+ of current RPG players is empirically wrong.

Okay, append all my posts as "I think this is the way the game was actually designed to support play and currently is my best understanding of why the rules are what they are."

And here's another point of disagreement. I don't believe that the way 2E was designed by Zeb Cook was for the same sort of play as that designed by Dave Arneson and Gary Gygax in the early 1970s. For that matter I don't believe that 1e AD&D was designed with the same intent as Brown Box D&D. 3.0's design goals were different again, as were 4E's. (And arguably 3.5's). Nevertheless they are all legitimate forms of D&D. And all very definitely part of the hobby.

Brown Box D&D has the role of referee as you indicate. As the RPG community separated from the wargame community it grew out of the role of the DM grew - D&D players were more likely to be SF fans than they were to be wargamers at heart and they wanted different things out of RPGs. That doesn't mean that you can say that they weren't roleplayers, merely that they weren't wargamers.

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.

Btw, what behavior do you think is directly interfering to games?

First, actively having to stop to consult rules for more than a few seconds at a time, or calculations that can't be done almost instantly.
Second, the rules producing ... unexpected ... outcomes that are anti-thematic.
Third, someone playing a Kender (or other griefing character).
Fourth, working on that railroad. The GM having a story that will be told or there being a badly designed adventure path where the PCs are spectators.

EDIT: Also, I still can't find anything on The Gaming Den to make me think they aren't just talking about 3e. What are you seeing there?

The Gaming Den is 3E exclusive. It's the way they approach 3.5 that is close to yours. DM as an impartial arbiter, strict following of the rules.

 

[Ahnehnois]

The odd thing about DMing is that it's both. You absolutely are a neutral arbiter of rules. But you are also supposed to do a lot of completely disparate things that have nothing to do with that, including being a player in your own right.

 

[pickin_grinnin]

There are a number of posters who don't seem to have internalized the fact that there are many ways of DMing and playing D&D (or any rpg), and that what's really important is that everyone involved has fun.

My personal style of DMing has evolved over 35+ years. At one point, though, sometime in the mid-80s, I found the style that suited me best, both in terms of my enjoyment and that of the types of players who usually gamed with me. I have tweaked it over the decades and adjusted it a bit to suit different groups, but the overall gist of it hasn't changed much.

At it's most basic level, I tend to DM this way:

- I design my own world and adventures. That keeps the players from using knowledge they gained by reading published books, and allows me full creative freedom. For me, the design aspects are half the fun.

- I follow the old school D&D philosophy: if there is a rule that I don't like, I get rid of it or change it. I don't do that on the fly or capriciously. That allows me to present game the way I like, and discourages rules lawyers.

- I don't allow rules-lawyering in my games. If I make an obvious mistake, I want someone to point it out to me, but that's different. I don't expose the background mechanics in my game - players don't always know why I'm rolling, the exact AC of the creature they are fighting, etc.

- I allow min-maxing, but the characters have to deal with the consequences of the "min" part. Given that, most of the players don't choose to min-max.

- I don't allow electronics at my table. Players don't get to text or play with their cell phones without a good reason (keeping an eye on their kids, for example). If the player can't stay relatively focused on the game, (s)he won't fit into my campaign.

- Though it's natural to make jokes and have fun at the table, I don't allow players who are mainly there to socialize or spend time with their significant others. If the game isn't the main focus, that player doesn't need to be there. I don't have a lot of time to game each week, and don't want to waste it with people who would be just as happy chit-chatting in the mall food court.

- I don't have a big ego. I don't think in terms of players outsmarting me, or see myself in opposition to the players. I want them to have fun, be creative, and enjoy the fruits of their accomplishments. I'm primarily there as a facilitator.

- Players only know what their characters would know.

- Rolls count. Without any potential consequences to decisions, the game ceases to be fun. Players have to live with the results of their choices. Having said that, I only require rolls on things that can't be resolved through roleplaying. For example, if a character wants to try to talk an NPC into doing something, I go through the conversation with the player, with me playing the role of the NPC. I play the NPC to character - each one has unique motivations and personality. We don't just do a simple charisma or bluff roll.

- Characters can die if they make bad choices (ex. attacking something they know they can't possibly defeat). The game is less interesting if there isn't a chance of death in combat.

- In general, the only time I fudge results to keep a character from dying is if I realize that a character died because I made a poor decision in designing the encounter, putting the group in a no-win position. That has not happened many times over the past 35 years.

- I encourage and reward creative solutions to difficult problems. In fact, I never design a campaign or encounter with only a single path to resolution. I make sure there are many ways to approach it, and particularly enjoy it when the players find a way to resolve things that had not occurred to me. I reward that with extra experience points.

- I reward players who come up with long-term goals, hobbies, etc. for their characters, and follow through with them over the course of the campaign.

- I design a world littered with various opportunities for adventures, encounters, etc. I make sure that the characters get wind of those things at various points, and offer them reasons to pursue them, but they don't have to do that. We can go full sandbox mode if that's what they like, because I have fully populated the world long before we start the campaign. Most players prefer to pursue adventure hooks, but some groups want to pursue their own goals. I can go either way with them.

- I don't run one-off games in D&D or Pathfinder. I run campaigns.

- Combat is only one facet of my campaigns. Characters generally spend more actual play time doing things that don't relate to combat. I know how to keep that sort of thing interesting.

- I don't play with alignments in general. I do require the players to come up with personalities for their characters, though, and reward them for sticking to the character concept. I have never had an issue with that approach. Clerics and other deity-oriented characters have to stay within the general scope of what the deity allows, though.

- PCs can be "evil" by the common conception of the term, as long as they are motivated to act cooperatively with the group. That's not much of a stretch in the real world, even, particularly given the number of CEOs and politicians who are effectively sociopaths.

- Just like PCs, NPCs are individuals with their own personalities. Not all NPCs of a particular species fall neatly into stereotypical concepts of "good" or "evil." Some do, some don't. Even creatures that are by definition "evil" (demons, for example) may express their alignments in different ways, and ultimately most have their own sense of ethics, however odd they may seem to humans. That sort of thing encourages the characters to interact with NPCs as individuals, not as cookie-cutter two-dimensional things.

- Players can use almost any class - including third-party ones - as long as they fit within the world I designed and are not overpowered. I will even work with a very motivated character (outside of game time) to create a new class that (s)he has envisioned, as long as it fits within the game.

- Players can have characters of any species, even those that are not officially playable, as long as they fit into the world I designed and are not overpowered. As with original classes, I will work with a motivated character to figure out the applicable ability scores and traits. The character does not have to be of human-level intelligence, but does need to be intelligent enough to learn and make decisions that aren't purely instinct-driven. Given that, a dog would work just fine, but an ant wouldn't.