D&D General How much control do DMs need?

[clearstream]

So the PCs are the only people in the setting who can proactively do anything, and NPCs/the setting can only react to what the PCs (try to) do?

So much for the idea of a living world.

I know what you mean, though also take into account that in any case we're only getting a seeming of a living world.

 

[Lanefan]

Hmmm... Not sure if I agree with your assessment here and I'm worried that you are reading what you wanna read rather than what some of us, such as myself have said. In my case, for example, I don't think that (1) "all TTRPGs contain an unwritten rule zero;" instead, it's more that I believe that hacking, house rules, and modifications are a natural byproduct of gamers engaging in the hobby.

I think the "unwritten rule 0" is what, in the eyes of many, allows and-or makes acceptable the doing of that hacking, kitbashing, and house-ruling.

 

[Aldarc]

I think the "unwritten rule 0" is what, in the eyes of many, allows and-or makes acceptable the doing of that hacking, kitbashing, and house-ruling.

And I disagree for reasons that I have already stated several times beforehand. Thank you. Come again. Have a nice day.

Also, please don't invoke at me a nebulous "in the eyes of many" as if they have any argumentative weight here.

 

[Lanefan]

A restatement

1. Users of an RPG can change the rules if they want to.
2. The GM is authorised to exercise 1. unilaterally.

In 2. the GM could probably be any one participant, such as via the "birthday rule", so it can be restated further that

1. Users of an RPG can change the rules if they want to.
2. One participant is authorised to exercise 1. unilaterally.
3. The GM is that participant.

So then, in terms of what one decides to be lacking credence, dislikeable, or whatever motive one has for choosing, one can object to 1., 2., or 3. as hierachically separate propositions. One can say (as many in this thread have) "I am happy with 1. but I do not accept 2. or 3." Or one can equally well say, "I am happy with 1. and 2., but not 3."

Picture another rule

N. Users of this RPG cannot change the rules.

So long as participants put rule N. in place for themselves (as they do for any rule, for any RPG) then it creates an RPG in which 1. isn't true.

I think the question revolves more around whether RPG designers are able/expected/allowed to insert Rule N up front with legitimate expectations that users of the game will adhere to it, thus rendering 1 2 and 3 moot before they arise.

 

[Lanefan]

But how do you imagine this plays out at a table without rule zero? Does every session devolve into a junior UN where play is deadlocked while votes are taken and extended negotiations are conducted?

More or less, yes, unless there's someone who has final-word authority.

Or do you think that the adults in the room discuss it for a moment, reach a compromise, and move on?

Compromise doesn't happen easily or quickly with stubborn people.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

This is ... not my understanding of this, at all.

You don't seem to have the same understanding that I do of history of D&D vis-a-vis Arneson and Gygax. I recommend Game Wizards as a place to start.* I would just say that instead of responding to the "FKR crowd," you simply invest in a relatively cheap book on the history of the game ... there's quite a few good ones that have come out recently.

For that matter, you don't seem to appreciate exactly what FKR is. As I've stated innumerable times, there is something profoundly wrong with people who keep insisting that they know exactly how it works yet aren't playing or running it. Allow me- how do you feel when someone forum-splains to you how PbTA games, or FiTD game run, and then admit that they've never played one?


*The main issue is that Arneson was, in fact, running the game without the benefit of many written rules. That was the source of the initial friction with Gygax. This is further exemplified by the manner in which Arneson would run games later at conventions and the like.

I have a PDF of the material that Dave sent to Gary at one point sitting on my hard drive. Its substantively most of what is in the 3 LBBs... No, it wasn't written down in a very fleshed out form, that is where Gary came in, was to make it comprehensible to other people. In fact this is where the two of them needed to HAVE rules, because they wanted to teach this game/technique to other people! I've also been playing RPGs since the early days, 1975, and I've played plenty of super rules-light games, as well as just making up stuff totally on the fly, no pre-established rules at all. So, the concerns and ideas of the FKR people are in no way foreign to me. Its not rocket science anyway! So we will simply have to totally disagree about what you or I or anyone else does or does not know or understand!

Nor do I need to read a book about RPG history that I lived, lol.

As far as Dave's rules, he DID make stuff up, like the cleric, it wasn't simply an unwritten rule. It might have been developed to meet a specific need, and what was initially written down was very likely nothing more than some very simple notes. It was still codified! Other people could now play that same type of character. I mean, this is a pretty special case in game design/play when you are making up the whole game from scratch in the process of playing. Nor is it my contention that the things Dave was doing were not a LOT like what he and others were doing previously (and continued to do) in Braunsteins and such. I don't contend that where they STARTED wasn't something a bit like the 'invisible rulebook' but that was not necessarily their intent! It was simply a part of the process that they used as DESIGNERS AND REFEREES at the same time! Its a little questionable to take all this early play, which was a LOT more provisional than even 1977 era play, and conclude from it that Dave or Gary didn't value codified rules. Also I think it is dubious to assume their opinions were simply static and didn't evolve as the activity they were undertaking also evolved. You CERTAINLY cannot maintain that Gary, the very least, didn't come to the conclusion that codified rules were needed, as the DMG flat out says it! Dave's opinion might be somewhat more open to question, but the fact that he fed his material to Gary to be "put into shape" tells us a lot!

 

[Lanefan]

Yeah, I mean, honestly, myself included, GMs normally assumed that you moved stuff around in some rational fashion on a map grid/hexes and that the PCs could kinda 'shift around' and we didn't REALLY play as if the PCs in melee were in some sort of weird quantum state. This is probably what everyone THINKS are the actual exact rules, because its how we played, AND Gygax certainly shows us techniques that don't make sense outside of that paradigm in places in the rules (like the thing with grenade-like missiles, if positions in melee aren't certain, why determine the exact landing spot of a grenade!). The real problem is, nobody was allowed to edit Gary's RULES CONTENT, he had editors, but from what I've heard they were told to hands-off on fixing anything like that. I guess the other point of view would be that Gary just intended people to pick and choose and ignore any of the contradictions, though I think its hard to imagine that he wouldn't have wanted to point out which things were distinct options. I favor the theory that he just wasn't concerned and knew people would 'do something' and it would be OK. Gary was nothing if not inconsistent.

I checked this out, and you're right - he's inconsistent.

In one place he does state that when you've multiple foes which one you attack is at random (though if you squint hard enough it's possible he's only talking about opponents there and not the PCs), but in a few other places he talks about facing and surround patterns and so forth, indicating it's possible to discern which foe is which. And in his Gutboy example it certainly reads like both sides are able to pick their targets, so (shrug?).

 

[hawkeyefan]

For sure. As I called out up-thread (with quotes from the DMG) there is no express rule zero in 5e.

Right, so it seems odd to refer to it as a rule. It's not explicitly defined or stated as a rule.

I took us to be discussing games that incorporated the written rule. Not specifically or solely 5e.

I am mentioning 5e because it is the most common version currently being played, and I think several of the posters here (myself included) currently play it regularly.

Tsk. As we discussed above (with quotes from AW) at least some of those games have written guidance about how to alter them.

Tsk? Yes, many games have stated principles of play. Often these are somehow considered less than rules, despite their seeming importance. So I thought the acceptance and promotion of Rule Zero an interesting phenomenon... it's not anywhere near as clear as the principles in a game like Apocalypse World, but it's held above the game's actual rules.

It's really not. As I laid out above.

Rule 1. Users of an RPG can change the rules if they want to.
Rule 2. One participant is authorised to exercise 1. unilaterally.
Rule 3. The GM is that participant.

We're saying that rule 1 is in force unless another rule (like my rule N.) suspends it. Nothing about rule 1. commits us to rule 3. Seeing as this is in agreement with what you are saying, I'm struggling to see why it is still unpalatable?

Who's we?

Plenty of comments are talking about the DM having the authority to invoke Rule Zero.

In the case of not sufficing, of there being blank space that is not addressed, there I would do what I could to resolve it a way that best conformed to the other rules. Because it's not changing or violating somethings that is written down, I feel more comfortable talking with the other players and coming up with a solution that everyone is happy with on the spot. Happens a reasonable amount with board games.

That sounds like a good way to handle it, for sure. In fact, it sounds like a good way to handle any such change.

In the case of something absurd, I would go along with it. I don't know what other components of the game I might inadvertently break in doing so, or what aesthetic/design intent is going to be diminished.

But the permission you're perceiving with Rule Zero does nothing to address knock on effects. It doesn't seem to address the concern you're expressing here.

I think the instinct you expressed above about unclear situations would guide you best here, as well.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

An arcane ritual to ingest the living essence of a leviathan will do that to a person! Also, it's fun to grow tentacles at will.

That was quite rad, yes. The tentacle thing was a hacked ability from the Drowner playbook, right?

 

[hawkeyefan]

And these boards are RIFE with people who flat out state that it is impossible to run a game, or that some vast swath of the typical RPG fare is unachievable, without a central authoritative GM. Don't even pretend this is a one-way street. And we're (if I can speak for any others) not 'dismissive' of classical RPG play either, this is the tradition we are coming from and in which any newer practices are rooted! I have no problem with what Arneson did, and I entirely understand his reasons. I think we generally game in a different climate than Dave did, so our needs are not his, and our game designs differ, that's all.

Can you find some examples? I ask because I honestly cannot recall a post on these boards making that claim.

There were plenty prior, but here's a fresh one:

More or less, yes, unless there's someone who has final-word authority.