FORKED - Game Fundamentals - Player Trust, Your GM, and Cake

[Hussar]

Yes, it was. 3E was just the ammunition. 3E didn't kill trust in the DM, people on the internet did.



Standardizing rules isn't the problem I'm referring to. Tightening the rules is OK, IMO, although I'm with billd91 in that I wouldn't go so far as to call the rules light versions of D&D before 3E a problem.

What I'm talking about is not trusting the DM to use his creativity outside of the ruleset to develop engaging stories, interesting challenges, deep mysteries, and ingenoius masterminds. This isn't a direct edict of the 3E ruleset, but the sense of entitlement players developed to have the DM explain all of his plans within the rules as written. I'm not referring to grappling or the effects of particular spells, I'm talking big picture.

But, by and large, you don't use any rules to develop interesting challenges, deep mysteries and ingenious masterminds.

Unless, of course, you run into players who insist that the rules of the game equals the physics of the world. But, again, that was a problem in every edition as well. Players who would tell DM's flat out that they were wrong. Heck, I had a player call me on using a particular monster because it was in the wrong climate/terrain back in 2e (a manticore outside the desert IIRC, but, that was a LONG time ago).

The idea that codified rules leads to greater player entitlement has never actually been proven. All codified rules actual result in is a greater sense of predictability. I know that I should be able to do X with a die result of Y because the rules tell me so.

I often wonder if people complain about player entitlement because they have not experienced a large number of other groups. I've been a gaming gypsy since before I started university. Even in high school we had a fair degree of turnover, both in players and DM's. I've had great ones, I've had bad ones. In all likelihood, I've BEEN both. ((Possibly at the same time. ))

I think that people who worry about the codification of the rules generally are gamers who have stable groups, very long lasting campaigns and are likely mostly experienced gamers with about a decade or more of experience behind them. Likely mostly with the same group of people.

I could be entirely wrong here, but, that's the sense I seem to get out of these threads.

Codified rules will not stop a game from being ruined by a jerk. That's going to happen no matter what. But, codified rules will stop a game from being ruined by that guy who isn't really out to be a jerk, but who has habits which might cause some friction in the group. It will mitigate the problem, not eliminate it.

Rules light systems require groups that are very willing not to abuse the system. It's why rules light systems have never been very popular. ((Yes, yes, AD&D is rules lighter than 3e, sure, but, it's never been a rules LIGHT system)) It's too difficult to find a group of like minded gamers who aren't going to use the system badly from a bunch of strangers.

But, I can likely plunk down five newbies, hand them any version of D&D, and know that they're not going to break the game at character generation ((Yes, Vampire, I'm looking at you.)).

 

[Hussar]

Perhaps a mentor ship program where experienced DMs can tutor newbies into the good ways of DMing? Good luck recruiting people for that venture.

This. This right here is why a Virtual Tabletop is needed to grow the hobby. Right here, you could build a D&D mentoring program from people's homes. I still cannot fathom why game publishers won't do this.

State that you're signing up registrants to play with the game designers for a 12 session campaign. Take 5 game designers and give them 5 players each. After you've played with those 25 players, ask them to sign up to mentor other groups and give them a free year's membership to DDI or something. On and on.

Train the GM's from the ground up. Show them how it's done and let them teach others.

Doesn't matter if it's D&D, Pathfinder, or some out of the basement indie game. THIS is how you grow your game.

 

[billd91]

The idea that codified rules leads to greater player entitlement has never actually been proven. All codified rules actual result in is a greater sense of predictability. I know that I should be able to do X with a die result of Y because the rules tell me so.

I'll certainly agree that more codification of rules hasn't been proven to cause greater player entitlement. But I do feel that entitlement issues are worse today than they used to be. I just suspect there's something else at work rather than codification of the rules. For one thing, I'd be inclined to spend more effort looking for a cause in the content of the rules rather than the degree to which they are detailed.

 

[Imaginary Number]

I'll certainly agree that more codification of rules hasn't been proven to cause greater player entitlement. But I do feel that entitlement issues are worse today than they used to be. I just suspect there's something else at work rather than codification of the rules. For one thing, I'd be inclined to spend more effort looking for a cause in the content of the rules rather than the degree to which they are detailed.

I don't think I understand the distinction you're making here. My general impression is that the content of a rules system is equivalent to the descriptive details of that rules system. What sort of "content" is it that you think might lead to a greater sense of player entitlement?

 

[billd91]

I don't think I understand the distinction you're making here. My general impression is that the content of a rules system is equivalent to the descriptive details of that rules system. What sort of "content" is it that you think might lead to a greater sense of player entitlement?

For example, you can fully detail characteristic generation with dice or you can do it with point-buy methods. The level of codification is the same, but the content of the rules codified is different. It's not the level of specificity or the extent of the detail, it's the content, the specific details.

Does that help?

 

[Imaginary Number]

For example, you can fully detail characteristic generation with dice or you can do it with point-buy methods. The level of codification is the same, but the content of the rules codified is different. It's not the level of specificity or the extent of the detail, it's the content, the specific details.

Does that help?

Sort of. I get that random generation vs. point-buy has a similar level of codification but that the latter gives more control of the outcome to the player of the character. But is it the giving of more control to the defining of the characteristics that you think leads to a greater sense of player entitlement, or is it that and/or something else?

 

[Vyvyan Basterd]

But, by and large, you don't use any rules to develop interesting challenges, deep mysteries and ingenious masterminds.

The major difference between 3E and all other editions of D&D that relates to this is that Monsters and NPC are built using the same rules as PCs. So I agree with you, but many 3E players I encountered do not agree with you. It's all anecdotal on my part, that's my post stating this opinion originally ended with a YMMV.

Unless, of course, you run into players who insist that the rules of the game equals the physics of the world. But, again, that was a problem in every edition as well. Players who would tell DM's flat out that they were wrong. Heck, I had a player call me on using a particular monster because it was in the wrong climate/terrain back in 2e (a manticore outside the desert IIRC, but, that was a LONG time ago).

Each edition has had its own way that players can feel entitled to be right. I had one of my players ask recently "why should our characters have to deal with finding magic items they can't use," in response to me dropping the 4E wish list. Frustrating, sure, but not as bad as the numerous times over the course of 3E where I was questioned over how a BBEG accomplished *whatever*.

The idea that codified rules leads to greater player entitlement has never actually been proven. All codified rules actual result in is a greater sense of predictability. I know that I should be able to do X with a die result of Y because the rules tell me so.

I don't think codifed rules do either. I think its more of the subconscious trend in the rules. Nothing explicitly said in the 3E rulebooks that the DM had to follow the rules when creating a fun challenge, etc. But many players felt that they were entitled to have the DM play on the same level as them.

I often wonder if people complain about player entitlement because they have not experienced a large number of other groups. I've been a gaming gypsy since before I started university. Even in high school we had a fair degree of turnover, both in players and DM's. I've had great ones, I've had bad ones. In all likelihood, I've BEEN both. ((Possibly at the same time. ))

Not me. I've run for alot of different people over the years.

I think that people who worry about the codification of the rules generally are gamers who have stable groups, very long lasting campaigns and are likely mostly experienced gamers with about a decade or more of experience behind them. Likely mostly with the same group of people.

I think your connecting two things that aren't really connected. I don't worry about the codification of rules. I do groan over various forms of player entitlement.

I could be entirely wrong here, but, that's the sense I seem to get out of these threads.

My issue is that people that trust me on a weekly basis to provide a fun challenge need to back off. I'm not out to kill your character. I'm here to provide a fun challenge and sometimes I may step outside the normal rules to do so. The rage over not understanding what's going on from the entitled players is a feeling of an unsolved mystery to those who don't feel entitled.

 

[Hussar]

My issue is that people that trust me on a weekly basis to provide a fun challenge need to back off. I'm not out to kill your character. I'm here to provide a fun challenge and sometimes I may step outside the normal rules to do so. The rage over not understanding what's going on from the entitled players is a feeling of an unsolved mystery to those who don't feel entitled.

Heh.

Ok, I can get behind that one. I'm not convinced its an edition thing though. I've seen that in every game I've ever run. I've likely done it once or twice as well.

I try to be a good player. Really I do. I just... backslide sometimes.

I guess I've just been really lucky. I haven't run into the whole player entitlement thing so often. It's come up once in a while, but, usually the player was just a dick in general, so, out comes the big ol' boot and it's time for a new player.

I wonder if the fact that my groups have almost always consisted of GM's has anything to do with it. The worst players I've had are the ones who never ran a game before. I generally find that anyone who's got some experience behind the screen makes a pretty darn good player. And, at least from about 1995 onwards, nearly all my groups have consisted of at least 50% GM's. Currently it's 100%.

 

[Doug McCrae]

I wonder if the fact that my groups have almost always consisted of GM's has anything to do with it. The worst players I've had are the ones who never ran a game before. I generally find that anyone who's got some experience behind the screen makes a pretty darn good player.

My experience is the opposite of that, experienced GMs seem to make the worst players because they're too opinionated and like to be in charge.

 

[Vyvyan Basterd]

Ok, I can get behind that one. I'm not convinced its an edition thing though. I've seen that in every game I've ever run. I've likely done it once or twice as well.

It's come up once in a while, but, usually the player was just a dick in general, so, out comes the big ol' boot and it's time for a new player.

I can agree that it's an entitled player being a dick, and that this was possible in any edition. It's just the ammunition they're given in each edition that effects my viewpoint (and hence my YMMV).

In BD&D/1E/2E it was mainly the "real world physics" argument (ammunition - nerf balls - annoying, but not painful).

But 3E became the "What Prestige Class did he use to do that? Or what spell was it?" argument (ammunition - might as well have been bullets).

Now 4E the most prominent has been "Whine....why are you dropping Wish Lists....whine." Not even really an argument, more of an annoying drone (ammunition - none - purely sonic energy).