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

[I'm A Banana]

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.

Discovering the unknown is one of the near-universal aspects of fun in D&D. Agreed.

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.

I'm not sure I follow. If the DM says at the start-up "This game will be fairly focused on diplomacy, which means that combat will rarely be a valid option for your characters," he's saying "Diplmacy will be rewarded, combat will not be...to succeed, attempt diplomacy." There's very little teaching going on there...merely a statement of intent.

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.

DMs are not psychologists, and players should not be putting on airs. If don't think you're going to ENJOY being a paladin, don't play one, and if you do think you're going to enjoy being a paladin, don't cry when faced with a moral dillemma (though feel free to no longer be a paladin). If the player plays a paladin, give him some moral challenges, he's ASKING for it.

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.

100% agreed.

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.

I don't believe the illusion that DMs are special snowflakes. I know previous editions encouraged this perspective, and I believe that getting away from it will be absolutely better for the game as a whole, because it should be a game that EVERYONE in your group could DM if they have the inclination....in their own world, in a shared world, or whatever. If my friends and I were seeking a DM, I wouldn't hesitate at all to tell them "no" if they're not going to work for us.

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.

No one should play a game where they aren't being amused (having their needs catered to). That person wouldn't need to be shown the door because they'd never walk through it in the first place -- it's not worth their time to walk through because it's not going to be fun for them. The DM behind that door has already *been* replaced.

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

And I have never wanted for games. Just because our approaches are different doesn't mean yours is better or worse.

 

[Ridley's Cohort]

Regarding the perceived inconsistency, Raven Crowking, what Henry said.

I would never suggest that a DM is obligated to run a game not to his taste. But at some level everyone at the table is an equal "player" of the game which is D&D, even if one particular player is more equal than others at another level.

 

[Thurbane]

As a (sometime) DM, I would have to say I prefer a game style that is middle ground between Raven and Kamikaze - I don't force the whole "This is my campaign style, like it or hit the road", but neither do I fret about whether my players minimum daily CR, XP and GP requirements are being met.

I play a style where I have a definite vision of my campaign world and what adventure path to nudge players along, but (for instance) if the players made it clear that they would prefer some political intrigue over a dungeon crawl, I will do my best to incorporate such into upcoming games. In short, I try to make sure the game is fun for myself and the players, without compomising my overall vision.

I also freely ignore WBL and CR rules ("OMG, what about balance !!!1!11!!"), but I never (rarely) throw a vastly superior foe at my players without some clear form of warning and/or an esacpe route.

Anyway, back ontopic to editions: does 3.X cater to awarding bonus XP outside of the CR system? For instance, in my own games, if I feel a player has done an exceptional job of roleplaying, made a clever suggestion that has greatly helped the party or somehow else contibuted to the game in a "above and beyond" type manner I award bonus XP, (I should point out I use a hybrid of 2E and 3E when awarding XP). This isn't a loaded question, just genuinely curious if 3.X caters to this sort of thing.

 

[Lanefan]

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

And me, too, if you agree with your own post.

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.

Sounds simple enough; I fail to see a problem.

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 a perfect world, maybe. Just maybe. But the world ain't perfect, so I'll stick with Plan A, above.

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.

So the DM is expected to tailor the game exclusively to the players, regardless of what the DM wants to run? Sorry, bud, but if I'm going to do the work involved in designing and running a game, then it's gonna be the pretty much game I want to run. Period.

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.

You make it sound like DM-ing can be done at the drop of a hat, and in gonzo games it can, but to prepare any kind of cohesive world is a multi-month undertaking.

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.

That's your style, and good. I know I like to have things a *bit* more prepared, including a half-decent map, a framework of a religion system, and a vague thumbnail idea of history before diving in; never mind any houserules or quirks I want to chuck in. These things take me a bit longer than 15 minutes.

Lanefan

 

[Thurbane]

There's also the question of why you play - for my own group, I would say it's about 55% social interraction (and a chance to catch up with friends we don't often get to see much otherwise), 45% for the love of the game. Bearing that in mind, I really have no desire to see any players "walk" due to a conflict of interests.

I firmly believe, though, that there is definitely middle ground to be had - as a DM, I find I can generally keep my players happy and interested (which occasionally entails being a little flexible and shaping my "gameplan" to match a little better with the players desires), without compromising my overall vision of my campaign and adventure ideas.

 

[I'm A Banana]

In a perfect world, maybe. Just maybe. But the world ain't perfect, so I'll stick with Plan A, above.

The thing I'm trying to get accross is that this is already the case in many groups, and plan A doesn't make much sense when the DM isn't creating his campaign in a vacuum, but rather is creating his campaign to meet the desires of the gaming group as a whole.

It's not just possible in a perfect world, it already happens in this flawed one.

So the DM is expected to tailor the game exclusively to the players, regardless of what the DM wants to run? Sorry, bud, but if I'm going to do the work involved in designing and running a game, then it's gonna be the pretty much game I want to run. Period.

Did I say that? No, I said that the players are being given what they want in both scenarios. In plan A, the players come *because* they want what is being offered, in plan B they express their wants and the DM meets them.

The DM needs to worry about his own fun, too, but just as players can still have fun in a game where there are no elves (for instance), DM's can still hae fun running a game in which the combats are straight-up and simple because that's what the players mostly want.

You make it sound like DM-ing can be done at the drop of a hat, and in gonzo games it can, but to prepare any kind of cohesive world is a multi-month undertaking.

I think this is a misconception. You *can* plan out your campaign world months in advance. Or you can build it from the ground up as the players explore. All you NEED for one night of gaming is an enemy and a goal and some obstacles to throw in their way. Everything else can be invented as you go along (and, indeed, leads very strongly to the effect of the players creating the story along with the DM).

The idea that DMing requires months of preplanning is madness on the face of it. It can involve months of preplanning (if it's fun for you to create an intricate world), but it can be done in 15 minutes with no variation in quality.

That's your style, and good. I know I like to have things a *bit* more prepared, including a half-decent map, a framework of a religion system, and a vague thumbnail idea of history before diving in; never mind any houserules or quirks I want to chuck in. These things take me a bit longer than 15 minutes.

And that's fine, but it is important to realize that the people who want to take months putting together a cohesive campaign world are very likely in a minority (not many people have that much fun inventing an imaginary world), and so for 3e to give advice and rules on things like random town generation helps more people to have more fun playing D&D.

I don't force the whole "This is my campaign style, like it or hit the road", but neither do I fret about whether my players minimum daily CR, XP and GP requirements are being met.

I don't usually fret about that stuff. It's all about if people are having fun. If they're NOT, say, they're complaining that the combats seem pointless, then I take a look at one of the sources of the problem (say, the CR of the creatures their encountering), and fix it.

Anyway, back ontopic to editions: does 3.X cater to awarding bonus XP outside of the CR system? For instance, in my own games, if I feel a player has done an exceptional job of roleplaying, made a clever suggestion that has greatly helped the party or somehow else contibuted to the game in a "above and beyond" type manner I award bonus XP, (I should point out I use a hybrid of 2E and 3E when awarding XP). This isn't a loaded question, just genuinely curious if 3.X caters to this sort of thing.

I don't have my books on me, but I think this would fall under the Ad Hoc XP rules, and likely the Circumstance Bonus for certain skill checks (+2 for good roleplaying of a Bluff, for instance).

 

[Philotomy Jurament]

And me, too...

And me...

So the DM is expected to tailor the game exclusively to the players, regardless of what the DM wants to run? Sorry, bud, but if I'm going to do the work involved in designing and running a game, then it's gonna be the pretty much game I want to run.

Me too... [is there an echo in here?]

(Incidentally, "what I want to run" changes, periodically, but I always tend to come back to an old-school D&D game -- it's kind of my "home base.")

 

[MerricB]

Anyway, back ontopic to editions: does 3.X cater to awarding bonus XP outside of the CR system? For instance, in my own games, if I feel a player has done an exceptional job of roleplaying, made a clever suggestion that has greatly helped the party or somehow else contibuted to the game in a "above and beyond" type manner I award bonus XP, (I should point out I use a hybrid of 2E and 3E when awarding XP). This isn't a loaded question, just genuinely curious if 3.X caters to this sort of thing.

Yes. There's actually a fairly good set of guidelines as to awarding bonus XP, what effect it has on other rewards, and how you can adjust things to compensate.

For instance, if you award bonus XP for role-playing, then if you don't want advancement to speed up, you should lower XP for overcoming challenges. That sort of thing.

3E explicitly sets out how much XP are generally awarded each encounter (and session) and notes how to alter them.

Cheeers!

 

[MerricB]

I don't have my books on me, but I think this would fall under the Ad Hoc XP rules, and likely the Circumstance Bonus for certain skill checks (+2 for good roleplaying of a Bluff, for instance).

Note that the DC of the Bluff check is set by the role-playing efforts of the player in the first place! The story they attempt to sell gives the DC. Trying to sell a "reactor leak" makes the DC much tougher.

Cheers!

 

[Kormydigar]

If I interpreted Kamikaze Midget's comment in that manner, then I would agree that it sounds like foolish advice. But I do not think that is he meant.

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 do not understand why you assume that the DM cannot use tactics. One could get much the same kind of pleasure by choosing weaker foes and playing them to the hilt, rather than adopting the unhelpful presumption that a PC "deserves" to die if not played in the manner you are used to.

If everyone at the game is having fun then it is a win-win situation. When I DM I love to see the PC's defeat the opposition. There are no "teach them a lesson" encounters. The cool thing is my players have the most fun with the toughest of the challenges. The ones that are talked about most fondly are the ones where one or more PC's were incapacitated and they managed to pull a victory out of thier butts anyhow.

I don't think a PC "deserves" to die unless he/she approaches an encounter in a certain manner but I do believe that PC's who insist on using only one tactic and then expect that one tactic to never fail (despite the evidence) should die until they grow a brain.

The problem is really one of numbers. I don't have any statistics but I think that there are a great many more player groups who prefer the "one tactic" playstyle than there are DM's who like to run this style of game.