Fantastic mysteries vs. DM cheating

[Desdichado]

Recently I've been reading through some of my old White Dwarfs - issues #168 and #173 in particular, because they feature long, historical essays on the skaven and the undead of the Old World respectively -- and I'm drawn by the fact that they make absolutely no attempt to explain everything that happens. Darn good fluff, by the way, some of the best in the game industry IMO.

I'm also reminded of something Tolkien once said in a letter about Tom Bombadil to a fan that wrote to him, in which he said:

"As a story, I think it is good that there should be a lot of things unexplained (especially if an explanation actually exists); ... And even in a mythical Age there must be some enigmas, as there always are. Tom Bombadil is one (intentionally)." (Letters, p. 174)

Now, in a typical RPG it's not quite so simple. If the DM decides to do something, and leave it a mystery, he may be accused of "cheating" of doing things for arbitrary reasons, for ignoring the rules, for breaking even his own rules. The nature of RPGs is that things that happen are codified, classified and described in detail so that DMs and players don't have to wonder about how or why something happens.

But I think some enigmas, done well, really enhance the experience. Really make you feel that you're playing in a complete fantasy world, not a game campaign setting. PCs don't have to, IMO, feel like they're entitled to potentially learn every type of magic that they see, or recognize and codify every challenge they face. But how do you pull that off without "cheating?" I have some ideas of my own, but I don't think they're very coherent at this point, so I'd like to just start some discussion at this level before I chime in with what I think.

 

[JacktheRabbit]

I disagree, as long as the DM is not acting in a way that hurts one player over another or hurts the party as a whole for no good reason I see no reason for him to have to explain and code everything to fit within the rules.

 

[ForceUser]

It's important to have mystery in a campaign. It can heighten player interest in your world as they try to discover the secrets, and it can also lend versimillitude, especially if the mystery is presented in a religious or historical context. A mystery serves to remind players that there's much out there that they don't know, which makes your world seem larger. I love 'em. Some of the mysteries I use are meant to be solved eventually, some are not.

 

[Dremen]

I think it depends alot on the players and DM's. When I DM I usually keep certain personalties out of the game. I run things on the fly. I may make up an NPC on the fly, if that NPC stays in the game I may make up some stats, sometimes I don't. I've even done some major villans this way, and only fleshed thier abilities out for a final confrontation.

The biggest thing to doing this I belive is player / DM trust. Some DM's are little meglomaniacs. They have to have everything thier own way. Some players are like this too. If the players can trust the DM not to have desires to kill them off, just because, and the DM can trust the players in similar ways this works out very well.

I have run whole sessions including combat where dice were only rolled a few times. As the game kinda took on a life of its own. This didn't happen every time, but when it did it was the most fun I have had gaming.

If a certain NPC needs to live for something else to happen, then no matter what the PC's do he'll get out. It doesn't have to be explained.

This style of play doesn't suit everyone, and rules lawyers don't really like playing with this style. (In my experience).

 

[Crothian]

Players cheat, DM's improvise.

It's all about trust. I won't play with a DM that I can't trust. I shouldn't be wondering if what he is doing is within the rules or not. That takes away from the game.

 

[Desdichado]

I disagree, as long as the DM is not acting in a way that hurts one player over another or hurts the party as a whole for no good reason I see no reason for him to have to explain and code everything to fit within the rules.

And how is it that you disagree again?

 

[Kid Charlemagne]

It's all about trust. I won't play with a DM that I can't trust. I shouldn't be wondering if what he is doing is within the rules or not. That takes away from the game.

This is the crux of good DM'ing. If your players trust you, then they will look at that mystery, and wonder what you're holding up your sleeve, not whether you are screwing them by making all their opponents have double hit points or by switching spell selections on the fly.

The key question, though, is this: How do you build that trust?

I keep many mysteries in my game, but I generally will reveal the answers to them after they have been disposed with.

 

[The Serge]

I agree with the gist of what you're saying. However, I think PCs should have the means to research and learn about apparent mysteries within a rpg.

Case in point. Two of us in our gaming group take turns DMing. The last time we played, the other gentleman DMed. For a while, we had been running into this Gnoll NPC who exhibited some decidely odd and interesting abilities that in no way corresponded with the core-classes. While I was admittedly curious and did muse a bit about what class make-up this hairy bastard had, I didn't feel as if I was missing out on something or that the DM was "cheating." In the end, some of the characters were allowed to do a little bit of research and discovered that the character was part of a special order that taught special things (a new PrC). This special order, largely made up of evil folks, was far removed from where our characters were from, so our characters didn't know anything about it until we gathered some information from observation and conducted research.

Now, some players, before all of this came to light, were whining about the appearance that our DM (and myself on regular occassion) does not provide PCs with ready access to all information about all aspects of the game. Not only is this attitude wrong with regards to our case (as the example above illustrates), it is also an attitude that tends to stem from people prone to meta-game/power-game, and to short-sighted rules-lawyers. These types bring to a game their external player knowledge that infects their ability to be objective PCs.

Another example. The last time I gamed, my PCs ran into a Death Knight and a high level Cleric. The Death Knight, whose stats I've had for some time, always had an immunity (of sorts) to divine healing magic, knowing that the casting of such a spell could destroy him. The PCs, of course, didn't even know the guy existed much less knew of this special defense he had. They decided to attack the two off the cuff after scrying them. The PCs teleported in, and one of the fighters has an artifact (this is a EL 20 party) that allows him to cast heal 1/day. He used the power on the Death Knight and saw no effect. Of course, he was expecting something since it was the first time this ability could be used and seemed a little put-out that it didn't. Simply put, the PCs had no reason to know about the Death Knights defense because they never did any research on it, were not from an area where there were legends associated with it, and did not notice anything unusual about the Death Knight to denote this special defense. (They still destroyed the Death Knight.... although the cleric miracled him back).

Anyway, I don't think PCs should go into a game expected to know every spell cast, or know the weakness of every monster. Although I don't do this regularly, the other DM routinely adjusts Monster Manual monsters, and spell descriptions to ensure that PCs (including myself) have to actually use our characters to determine what's going on. I admire and respect this. I'm not certain all players do.

 

[Crothian]

The key question, though, is this: How do you build that trust?

Through honesty and talking to them. It's no different then building the trust of co workers, bosses, and friends. I don't find it that hard. It's either something you do in life or not.

 

[The Serge]

Through honesty and talking to them. It's no different then building the trust of co workers, bosses, and friends. I don't find it that hard. It's either something you do in life or not.

Trust is only part of it. I think the player's maturity (and the DM's to be sure) also has an impact. Players who see the game as a competition/all-eyes-on-me/win or lose situation and who expect things to be handed on a plate to them tend not to be mature about dealing with situations not straight from the rule books.

DMs who approach the game as "me and my knowledge against the players'" rather than as an opportunity to present fun and challenging stories and ideas also lack maturity and/or focus.

I also don't think the DMs need to always explain things to PCs immediately. Unless the PCs completely and utterly defeat an adversary, I don't tell them what happened. I do elect to answer questions on occassion, but I don't think the players automatically have a right to know, even the most mature players, because one runs the risk of even the best allowing their personal knowledge to affect their game knowledge.