[EDITION WARZ] Selling Out D&D's Soul?

[Raven Crowking]

A skilled DM (IMO) creates interesting challenges, makes player choice significant to the general outcome of the game, provides an environment that rewards good tactical and strategic play and offers consequences for poor play and rash decision-making and keeps the game flowing smoothly. He achieves these things by being creative, imaginative, fair, impartial and through use of clear, unambiguous communication with the players.

I agree completely.

If a particular group consistently fails to use certain tactical savvy you or I might consider SOP, it is not a DM virtue to "teach them a lesson" in the big finale. If you have not successfully gotten the point across before then, then either you have to some degree failed as a DM or there is a deeper conflict about play style best resolved while chatting casually with beers in hand.

I find it somewhat inconsistent to both claim that the DM should not be teaching what is rewarding within the confines of the game he runs, and also that it is the DM's fault if the players do not learn this. Obviously, one (or both) of these ideas cannot be true. Moreover, continuing to perform the same actions in the same circumstances, with a belief that those actions will somehow create a different outcome, is a bigger problem than playstyle or DM competence/incompetence.

DMs and players both are better served by playing with others whose playstyles are at least compatible. It is not incumbant upon the DM to change playstyles, if for no other reason than that it is not incumbant upon anyone to DM. It is certainly not incumbant upon anyone to do the work of DMing in a manner that they do not enjoy.


RC

 

[Crothian]

Hrmmmm.... just some short points from my point of view.

new edition: (4e)... money making for WotC. Only reason for them to change it.

It's not the only reason. 3.x has enough problems and I have to imagine Wizards has learned a lot of how to do an OGL type game. Any company that takes itself seriously is going to have money as part of nearly any choose they make. But it is rarely the only reason.

 

[Henry]

I find it somewhat inconsistent to both claim that the DM should not be teaching what is rewarding within the confines of the game he runs, and also that it is the DM's fault if the players do not learn this.

To be fair, he did say, "in the big finale." It reads to me that if a DM hasn't nudged them towards being more cautious previously, a major climax ain't the moment to do it.

DMs and players both are better served by playing with others whose playstyles are at least compatible. It is not incumbant upon the DM to change playstyles, if for no other reason than that it is not incumbant upon anyone to DM. It is certainly not incumbant upon anyone to do the work of DMing in a manner that they do not enjoy.

To an extent, I can agree, but in that play styles can be very mutable in a group, varying by anything from game to campaign, I think as was said, it's a better idea to be in agreement before the game starts rolling.

 

[Raven Crowking]

The responsibility is certainly his to know the player's styles well enough to cater to them, or he is, fairly by definition, a bad DM.

Absolutely not.

If the players liked political intrigue and the DM decided his game would revolve around a month long dungeon crawl, and he is upfront about this, the players have to decide whether or not to play. Nothing more. This doesn't make him a bad DM.

Likewise, if the players like to rush in half-cocked and try to slay the evil guy, but they know that the DM prefers to make things more difficult, they have to decide whether or not to play. If they are going to play, they have to decide if rushing in and dying (with the slim chance of success) or stopping to think will be more fun. The DM not catering to the players does not make him a bad DM.

If you're running an urban campaign in Sigil (or Ptolus) and the players decide to make druids, rangers, and scouts, that's on them, not on you. You are not a bad DM because any given player or group of players is unable to make appropriate characters for the game setting.

Noone is ever forced to change the way they have fun, but if four other people are going to sit at the table, the DM shouldn't be forced to change the way he has fun because the players aren't willng to give him what he wants. Sometimes, some players shouldn't be playing with some DMs. That doesn't make those DMs bad DMs. Frankly, it is impossible for a DM to force his own style choices onto unwilling players.

Sometimes, some DMs shouldn't have any players at all. Those we can safely say are bad DMs.

Sometimes, some players shouldn't have a DM. Those we can safely say are bad players.

That is the "very basic social contract" of the game. The DM gets to play the game he wants if he can find players for it. The players get to play the game they want if they can find a DM for it. Nothing else. And certainly not "the DM must cater to the players or is, fairly by definition, a bad DM".


RC

 

[PapersAndPaychecks]

The DM IS The guy who puts the treasure and the monsters there. The responsibility is certainly his to know the player's styles well enough to cater to them, or he is, fairly by definition, a bad DM.

Huh?

The process is: I tell you about the campaign I'm DMing; you decide if you want to play. If so, you create a character that fits the world. If not, no hard feelings, but there's the door.

It's taken me somewhat in excess of 25 years to build my campaign world and it occupies a shelf and a bit full of ringbinders. You can roll a character in about half an hour on a couple of bits of paper. Mohammed has to go to the mountain, because the mountain will not come to Mohammed.

If the players liked political intrigue and the DM decided his game would revolve around a month long dungeon crawl, he would be a bad DM.

Again, huh? Does the DM decide where the characters go or what the characters do?

I've just spent several thousand words arguing that it's up to the players tell the DM where they go.

Likewise, if the DM knows that the players are going to rush in half-cocked and try to slay the evil (because that's what's fun for them) and decides to lay the smack down, it's a poor DM because he's not helping the players to have fun. They would be better served by a DM who is willing to give them big, dramatic, not-too-difficult combats. Four other people at the table shouldn't be forced to change the way they have fun because the DM isn't willng to give them what they want.

The players tell the DM what kind of game they want; the DM gives it to them and makes sure it's suitably easy (because, heaven forbid, the poor darlings might have to think otherwise); the players play it; then everyone goes home?

Why bother with paraphernalia like dice or rulebooks? You might as well all go down the pub and have a few beers while the DM tells you what happens.

DMs of older editions for me had significant of difficulty wrapping their minds around that very basic social contract.

I certainly do.

How were my old DMs to know what an appropriate XP award was for our level and choose monsters we could clearly face?

They weren't to know and it wasn't their job to know. It's not the DM's job to choose monsters for you to face. It's your job, as a player, to be aware of what monsters are in the area and choose which ones you want to encounter and which you want to avoid. If the DM is choosing the monsters for you, then the DM has too much control over your game.

That's why you talk to NPCs and you scout and you track and you move ever so carefully and quietly through the wilderness: because the wilderness isn't balanced against you at all. You have to work round the environment, not the other way around.

Could it be that this is what most of the audience actually WANTS out of the game? Wouldn't it be reasonable to assume people want more LotR and less Chainmail, given how many people know about Frodo and how many people have played Chainmail? Isn't this just the game meeting the needs of the audience? "Market forces" at work.

What the audience wants out of the game is fun. Period.

What the audience finds fun varies along the gamist/simulationist/narrativist axes. (I hate forge-speak with a passion, by the way, but it's useful shorthand here.)

Now I'll admit, my bias is strongly gamist. I'm not particularly interested in telling a story. I want to give you meaningful decisions and judgment calls to make, and I want to minimise the gap between each meaningful decision, and I want you to have the chance to show me your abilities as a player of the game, not just your character's abilities that we can resolve with a dice roll.

I acknowledge there are players who don't like that. They want to measure their characters, not their own abilities, so they're matching numbers on their character sheet against the numbers on the DM's scenario booklet. Objectively I know this for a fact; but I have no clue what's supposed to be fun about it.

 

[I'm A Banana]

I find it somewhat inconsistent to both claim that the DM should not be teaching what is rewarding within the confines of the game he runs, and also that it is the DM's fault if the players do not learn this. Obviously, one (or both) of these ideas cannot be true. Moreover, continuing to perform the same actions in the same circumstances, with a belief that those actions will somehow create a different outcome, is a bigger problem than playstyle or DM competence/incompetence.

I don't believe a DM should be teaching the players anything. We're all equals, we all know what we want, and if the DM cannot give the other four people what they want, the DM must change or be replaced because he would not be a good DM for that group.

Now, the players need to be flexible, too, and sometimes "nudging" them into a playstyle is definately beneficial (if they don't KNOW if they like political intrigue, but have never done it before, it can't hurt to slowly introduce those aspects). However, if they fail to be "nudged" (continue to choose the hack-and-slay over the intrigue) then it needs to be dropped, at least for a time, because either it isn't fun for them or the DM's nudging is not persuasive enough.

DMs and players both are better served by playing with others whose playstyles are at least compatible. It is not incumbant upon the DM to change playstyles, if for no other reason than that it is not incumbant upon anyone to DM. It is certainly not incumbant upon anyone to do the work of DMing in a manner that they do not enjoy.

Indeed, which is why both sides of the screen need to be flexible. The players need to accept that there are many needs the DM is addressing (including his own), so they may not get their favorite stuff every time, but they can still have fun and rely on the DM to provide their favorite stuff whenever he can (and if they're incompatible with the group, they don't need to be playing). The DM needs to accept that it is not HIS game, it is the GROUP's game, and that he will cater to the player's needs or be replaced.

 

[Raven Crowking]

I don't believe a DM should be teaching the players anything. We're all equals, we all know what we want, and if the DM cannot give the other four people what they want, the DM must change or be replaced because he would not be a good DM for that group.

1) I believe, absolutely, that a campaign setting should contain things that are unknown to the players, and it is the DM's job to help the players learn about the campaign setting.

2) I believe, absolutely, that a good DM perforce must teach the players what his or her style is. This is not the same thing as converting them to his or her style. However, they must have some ability to learn what is rewarded within a particular campaign world, and what is not.

3) There is a big difference between what we want right now and what we want in the long term. Humans are full of conflicting desires.

4) If the DM cannot give the other four people what they want, he would not be a good DM for that group. If the DM can give the other four people what they want, but must change in a way that prevents the DM getting what he wants, they would not be a good group for that DM.

5) When you say, "The DM needs to accept that it is not HIS game, it is the GROUP's game, and that he will cater to the player's needs or be replaced", I hope you realize that when some of us DM, it IS our game....we play with multiple groups within the same campaign world. No player, IME at least, has ever tried to tell any DM that said DM is going to be replaced, so could he please hand over his binders of campaign world information? I know, within a fair degree of accuracy, what my response to such a suggestion would be. There are also quite a few DMs out there who would be more than happy to allow someone else to DM for a while, or who are more than happy to have their friends play with other DMs while they continue their campaign worlds with other players.

6) I would never, ever, ever accept any player who said ""The DM...will cater to the player's needs or be replaced." That person would be shown the door before he removed his hat. So, I suppose, he wouldn't have to worry about whether or not I needed replacing.

7) Oddly enough, I have never wanted for players. Go figure.


RC

 

[Raven Crowking]

We're all equals

We are all equals as people, but we are not all equals within the game relationship.

Rights and responsibilities go hand-in-hand. The one with the most responsibilities has the most rights. If that person wishes to give some of those rights to a group, that's his call. If that individual can't get a group of players without giving them up, that's his fault (either due to lack of skill or due to location).

A good DM (and I am not talking about a great DM here, just a good one) can find a group of players, entertain them, and be entertained by them, without requiring "catering" to anyone.

YMMV, of course.


RC

 

[I'm A Banana]

I see that I differ in a fundamental social contract aspect with RC (not the first time ) and probably P&P, too.

That is the "very basic social contract" of the game. The DM gets to play the game he wants if he can find players for it. The players get to play the game they want if they can find a DM for it. Nothing else. And certainly not "the DM must cater to the players or is, fairly by definition, a bad DM".

From what I understand about this, the "cookie metaphor" is useful. Someone says "Hey, I'm baking chocolate chip cookies, who wants some?" There are those who don't like it, who have allergic reactions, etc, but those who want some come and enjoy the cookies.

Someone says "Hey, I'm DMing a game, you want to play? Here's my rules." Those who don't like it or who can't stand it don't come and those who come enjoy the game.

But that's not the only way it works. Much more often, in my experience, it works more like ordering a pizza. Someone says "I feel like pizza, does anyone else?" Some do, some don't. With those who do, a consensus is reached about what kind of pizza. Maybe somebody REALLY LOVES anchovies, but knows no one else does, so doesn't make it an issue -- he's "okay with whatever." Maybe someone else is a vegetarian, so you'll want at least half without meat...but someone else won't give up their pepperoni, and his girlfriend is really in the mood for pineapple. You find out what people don't like, and exclude it, and eventually reach a consensus....and then one person orders it. That orderer needs to make sure people get what they want.

The group decides they want D&D and what kind of characters and game it's going to be. Then one person amongst them DMs, making sure everyone gets what they want.

In both cases, the players end up getting what they want, being "catered" to, and a DM who wouldn't cater to those players (either because he changes his rules after the fact, or because he ignores what his friends tell him they wanted) is a bad DM. In the metaphors, he says he's cooking chocolate chip cookies and surprisingly adds nuts to it, or orders what he wants on the pizza without considering what others do.

The process is: I tell you about the campaign I'm DMing; you decide if you want to play. If so, you create a character that fits the world. If not, no hard feelings, but there's the door.

It's taken me somewhat in excess of 25 years to build my campaign world and it occupies a shelf and a bit full of ringbinders. You can roll a character in about half an hour on a couple of bits of paper. Mohammed has to go to the mountain, because the mountain will not come to Mohammed.

There's another process that you're ignorant of: The group decides they want to play D&D, they make characters, and someone steps up to DM them. The DM's campaign need not come first and, IMXP, doesn't usually.

It takes me about 15 minutes to think of 20 good hooks for fantasy adventure and I can randomly generate everything from encounters to towns. The mountain is the group, not the DM's campaign.

The players tell the DM what kind of game they want; the DM gives it to them and makes sure it's suitably easy (because, heaven forbid, the poor darlings might have to think otherwise); the players play it; then everyone goes home?

Why bother with paraphernalia like dice or rulebooks? You might as well all go down the pub and have a few beers while the DM tells you what happens.

Having a few drinks and playing the game offer different experiences. If group consensus is "I just want to roll d20's and kill goblins for a few hours," making them think is not going to meet their needs.

They weren't to know and it wasn't their job to know. It's not the DM's job to choose monsters for you to face. It's your job, as a player, to be aware of what monsters are in the area and choose which ones you want to encounter and which you want to avoid. If the DM is choosing the monsters for you, then the DM has too much control over your game.

Wrong. They're just playing it a different way from what you're used to. A way that (gasp!) may actually be vastly more popular than the way you want to play it, and thus a way that D&D is going to cater to.

I acknowledge there are players who don't like that. They want to measure their characters, not their own abilities, so they're matching numbers on their character sheet against the numbers on the DM's scenario booklet. Objectively I know this for a fact; but I have no clue what's supposed to be fun about it.

Fair enough. But if sales are the only barometer of what people like, they like (at least partially) D&D telling a story better than a D&D as pure dungeon scenario. And it's not that unexpected -- D&D draws from *stories* for it's genre, from movies and books.

Which brings me to the debatable point that D&D's changes since earlier editions have made it a *better* game, objectively, because it meets the demands of most of the market it tries to capture.

 

[BroccoliRage]

Well said Raven. The only point I disagree on is #4. I believe the players should behave like adults, and go with the flow. So should the DM. I don't think you should be GIVEN what you want, you should have to help CREATE what you want.