Dungeon Mastering as a Fine Art

[pemerton]

Your statements about the role of the DM are in flat contradiction to every DMG from 2E onwards.

As I'm about to demonstrate, they are also in contradiction to Gygax's DMG and to Moldvay Basic.

Also, are you familiar with the early 80s Puffin book "What is Dungeons & Dragons?" (Americans generally aren't, but as a British RPGer you might be)? It includes examples of player-created fictional background, players making decisions for their PCs based on ingame story and thematic concerns rather than simply pawn stance, and certainly has a far more expansive conception of what RPGing might be then is demonstrated in howandwhy99's posts.

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.

<snip>

wandering monsters are rolled, not made up by the DM.

From Moldvay Basic, p B53:

Wandering monters may be determined at random or selected by the DM. . . Wandering Monsters should apppear more often if the party is making a lot of noise or light, but should not be frequent if the party spend a long time in one out-of-the-way place (if they stop in a room for the night, for example).​

From Gygax's DMG, p 221:

Some Dungeon Masters have difficulty decribing the contents of potion bottles, magical elixers, and like liquid substances. The lists below give the appearances of liquids, colors, tastes, and smells. In combination with APPENDIX I: DUNGEON DRESSING (q.v.) or by itself, these various descriptive words will serve the DM in god tea when preparing level keys or when "winging it".​

Gygax again, p 110:

t is your right to conrol the dice at any time and to roll the dice for the players. . . You might . . . wish to give them an edge in finding a particular clue, e.g. a secret door that leads to a complex of monsters and treasures that will be especially entertaining. You do have every right to overrule the dice at any time if there is a particular course of events that you would like to have occur.​

It seems to me that neither Gygax nor Moldvay agrees with you. I have my own views on what sort of "overruling" Gygax had in mind - I think he was not talking about Rule 0 or cheating, but about GM control over framing and also the adjudication of fictional positioning - but it is clear that he thinks a GM has a role to play in introducing and managing game content during the course of play.

Relating back to my OP, Gygax also advised (on p 110) that

There will be times in which the rules to not cover a specific action that a player will attempt. In such situations, instead of being forced to make a decision, take the option to allow the dice to control the situation. This can be done by assigning a reasonable probability to an event then letting the player dice to see if he or she can make that percentage. You can weigh the dice in any way so as to give the advantage to either the player character or the non-player character, whichever seems more correct and logical to you while being fair to both sides.​

 

[Ahnehnois]

You do have every right to overrule the dice at any time if there is a particular course of events that you would like to have occur.

Sigh.

 

[Neonchameleon]

As I'm about to demonstrate, they are also in contradiction to Gygax's DMG and to Moldvay Basic.

Also, are you familiar with the early 80s Puffin book "What is Dungeons & Dragons?" (Americans generally aren't, but as a British RPGer you might be)? It includes examples of player-created fictional background, players making decisions for their PCs based on ingame story and thematic concerns rather than simply pawn stance, and certainly has a far more expansive conception of what RPGing might be then is demonstrated in howandwhy99's posts.

Thanks I always like learning more about history and have never actually looked at Moldvay Basic. As for early 80s Puffin, it was published before I learned to read. On the other hand there were four copies available for 1p plus shipping from Amazon, so I just bought one.

 

[Lanefan]

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.

Even given these conceits it's still a viable goal to make things as realistic as they can be, within reason. What are the physics of magic, for example, and how can they fit in with what we already know in the real world? (I've actually given this some thought over time, and come up with a "theory" that at least works for my own purposes)

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.

I agree 1-minute rounds are too long. But I also subscribe to the pre-3e point of view that one's "swing" in a round is in fact your best attempt of possibly several over a short time span; which means 3e-length rounds are too short. So, I long ago went to 30-second rounds; and this stil works as a good compromise. (I'd have gone to 20-second rounds but 20 doesn't divide nicely by 6 and I use 6-segment rounds; 18 does but it then gets messy when trying to translate to minutes as there'd be 3.333 rounds per minute - yuck)

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?

Much of the point of RPGs in general, at least the way I've always seen it, is that they are by design intentionally malleable, to allow for different styles of play at different tables. The role of the DM is also malleable; and while the DM is (in all editions) supposed to enforce the rules there is lots of latitude in how, and in what rules will actually matter. In the end, in fact, Rule 0 or its equivalent is the only true "rule" the game has.

Also, the DM *can* also be a player, unlike a referee in a hockey game.

I think [MENTION=42582]pemerton[/MENTION] and [MENTION=87792]Neonchameleon[/MENTION] already nicely covered the rest of what I was going to say.

Lanefan

 

[Neonchameleon]

Even given these conceits it's still a viable goal to make things as realistic as they can be, within reason. What are the physics of magic, for example, and how can they fit in with what we already know in the real world? (I've actually given this some thought over time, and come up with a "theory" that at least works for my own purposes)

Conceits about how magic works I have no problem with. It's conceits about psychology that I do - and dungeon crawling in specific.

I agree 1-minute rounds are too long. But I also subscribe to the pre-3e point of view that one's "swing" in a round is in fact your best attempt of possibly several over a short time span; which means 3e-length rounds are too short. So, I long ago went to 30-second rounds; and this stil works as a good compromise. (I'd have gone to 20-second rounds but 20 doesn't divide nicely by 6 and I use 6-segment rounds; 18 does but it then gets messy when trying to translate to minutes as there'd be 3.333 rounds per minute - yuck)

That's not a pre-3E conceit. That's a generic conceit. Anyone who thinks it takes six seconds to swing a sword hasn't wielded one or is looking to get stabbed. What 3e and to a greater extent 4e represent with 3E's six seconds and 4e's rough equivalent (I'm not sure it's specified as six seconds) is one exchange of blows or one OODA loop which from memory is around five seconds in a skirmish knife fight.

 

[howandwhy99]

In the end, in fact, Rule 0 or its equivalent is the only true "rule" the game has.

To me this is my biggest disagreement. Not just for D&D and RPGs, but any game or sport anywhere. I don't have a problem with house rules or homebrewing. I think hombrewing in fact is a temperature gauging the health of the hobby. But Rule Zero is bad game design in every respect I can think of. But I have come to respect your opinion over the years and if Rule 0 is that vital to you I'd like to know why.

Also, the DM *can* also be a player, unlike a referee in a hockey game.

For me this is simply not possible. Games are codes. The DM has a code, a hard solve, behind the screen. The players are gaming in to achieve self determined objectives within it. (The game itself like Chess is too hard to solve for it to be a puzzle) The DM could try and play it like a player does, but for me it always comes down to a referee running Mastermind trying to play both sides of the screen. Are they purposefully supposed to forget the code? Are they supposed to pretend they don't know what's going on behind the screen? They simply don't have the opportunity to be both IMO.

 

[pickin_grinnin]

Games are codes. The DM has a code, a hard solve, behind the screen. The players are gaming in to achieve self determined objectives within it. (The game itself like Chess is too hard to solve for it to be a puzzle) The DM could try and play it like a player does, but for me it always comes down to a referee running Mastermind trying to play both sides of the screen. Are they purposefully supposed to forget the code? Are they supposed to pretend they don't know what's going on behind the screen? They simply don't have the opportunity to be both IMO.

If I understand what you mean by "games are codes," I disagree. They can be played that way, but don't have to be.

In addition, there is not always a hard solve. That's just one way to play.

DMs play NPCs. A good one plays the NPCs as characters with natural limits on their knowledge and with different motivations, just like PCs.

 

[innerdude]

But Rule Zero is bad game design in every respect I can think of. But I have come to respect your opinion over the years and if Rule 0 is that vital to you I'd like to know why.

In this sense I don't think he's referring to any one particular application of Rule Zero, or any particular "mindset" about when it's appropriate to use. I think he's referring more to the general reference that really, when it comes down to it, the social contract of an RPG group essentially has to say, "Yes, we agree to that, and you're the person who has the first (but far from final) judgement on what we're willing to play."

It's the same idea as the quote [MENTION=22779]Hussar[/MENTION] has in his signature, that "The rules don't give the GM his power. The consent of the players do."

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.

 

[pemerton]

As for early 80s Puffin, it was published before I learned to read. On the other hand there were four copies available for 1p plus shipping from Amazon, so I just bought one.

Once you get a chance to have a look at it, start a thread - I'd be interested to see who else on these boards remembers it, and remembers being influenced by it.

For me, it - together with Moldvay Basic and early White Dwarf - had a much bigger impact on my approach to RPGing than Gygax's advice in his rulebooks. Back then, I didn't really have any sort of clear handle on the approach he was describing.

Sigh.

Why the sigh?

 

[Hussar]

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