In praise of the Healer Theme

[Charwoman Gene]

You seem to be missing the point: your social contract (whichever one you choose) exists.

You are missing the point that some social contracts involve a leader. An iron fisted leader that all the players accept the mad, arbitrary decisions of happily. That's still a social contract. Maybe not one you would like but whatever. You seem to somehow think that because you play D&D in a certain way that all groups have the same social contract. Some social groups have static relationships that allow other behaviors.

Imagine "Stinky Pete". Pete is a loser who has no social skills, lives with his parents and spends 40 hours a week crafting his adventures. He is an iron-fisted rat-bastard DM. His players are his younger cousins and a friend of theirs, and her taught them all to play and they are all super casual and have ZERO desire to DM. And they live in a very isolated rural area. This contract is not yours.

 

[mlund]

You are missing the point that some social contracts involve a leader. An iron fisted leader that all the players accept the mad, arbitrary decisions of happily. That's still a social contract.

No, the key point is the players can never surrender the ability to void the social contract at any time and make a new one.

You seem to somehow think that because you play D&D in a certain way that all groups have the same social contract.

Not even remotely. I do recognize that not all forms of social contract are worth catering to in design, though. They'll always be "Stinky Pete" outliers you should just ignore when designing a game. Given all the DMGs printed in 3.5E, 4E, and even the play test packets I don't think Stinky Pete is D&D's target demographic for a Dungeon Master.

I disagree with your conclusion here

I disagree with your disagreement.

In a modular system, this should not hold. There should be all kinds of things available that most people won't use, but the minority which do use it finds it very useful.

I think that's conflates "modules" and "Core" too much. Modules are options layered onto Core to add new layers to the game. Core is the baseline assumptions that the modules have to take for granted and append or modify.

In the "Core," there will inevitably be things that some people don't care for--if only because they will be in the core to support certain playstyles or other modules. Turning these elements "off" is like the DM deciding not to use a particular monster in the MM--it's hardly "house rules" to opt out of using an option.

There I agree and disagree. It's wrong to conflate not using rules that don't come up in play with deliberately disabling them when they would occur. Only the latter strikes me as "turning elements off."

The DM not using a particular monster, terrain feature, or hazard as part of an encounter is not the same thing as the DM prohibiting a player from taking a Feat, Spell, or Weapon that's, rules as written, assumed to be available his or her character. The characters are usually the players' canvas on which to paint. Monsters, hazards, and NPCs are typically the DM's canvas.

When a player desires to interject, say, a back-story character as an NPC or the DM would like a quirk added to a character its an exercise in sharing their usual creative space.

I can also see some serious overlap situations where a particular element a player wants his character to interact with simply doesn't exist because the DM doesn't put it in the environment. IE - the DM never uses Traps so the Rogue's "Find Traps" skill training is effectively disabled. Those need to be hammered out by the group.

- Marty Lund

 

[Lord Mhoram]

N "If it is in the core rules, the DM is a jerk for banning it," is a terrible, terrible idea for groups that like world-building and immersion. If I ban dragonborn PC's from my 4e game, it's not going to be random or capricious. If it is for campaign theme or balance reason it is NOT arbitrary.

This whole approach (it's in the rules, it's legal) is pretty alien to me... but then my primary game is HERO (for 25 years) and part of the game is that the GM sets limits on damage, defences, pts, and what he allows in to the game.

The fact that Next seems headed in that direction (with modules and such) I think is fantastic.

 

[Greg K]

Your use of capricious and Capt Control sound like someone believes that whatever concept a player can dream up must be accommodated if the rules allow for it. That sounds like player entitlement or rules lawyer.
One of the goals of Next has been stated to be moving power back to the DM and setting design has been, traditionally, one of the things falling under the description of the DM. Part of setting design is deciding what exists and does not exist in the setting including which options are or not allowed (this was even true 3e which explicitly stated in the DMG that the DM determined how the game was played and which options were in use) and many DMs choose to do design the setting and then find players or present it to the group as what they will run (especially, for a group that loves immersionist and exploration). For organizations (religious, magical, cultural, etc.), this may mean placing certain requirements or limitations on starting feat, skill or spell choices Upon receiving the invitation, it is then the player's decision to decide if they can abide by the limits. If they can, they participate. If not, they don't. No yanking the book out of the player's hands is required.

There's no game rule prohibiting DMs from capriciously deeming characters dead out of spite or randomly banning core materials. It's the basic social contract that makes such things a bad idea.


Um ... going by the dictionary that's actually the definition of arbitrary. Seriously, look it up.

The DM is one person. His capacity as arbiter comes completely from the consent of the players at his table - nothing more and nothing less. Hypothetical Cpt. Control Issues can't yank the PHB out of players' hands unless the players want him to. Likewise the players can't force the DM to show up and run for them - if it comes to that someone else has to step up and assume the work-load.

(See also: Dexter's Laboratory, Season 2, Episode 7: D&DD)

Beyond that, we have a reading comprehension problem looking at the Mearls comment. The first sentence addresses players - they are the ones that pick feats for the characters, not the DM. In the second sentence he drops the prior pronoun to address a new subject - the DM creating his custom themes. The game does not require players to play "mother may I" with the DM to pick their feats ala carte.

The default CORE is players pick feats for their characters - ala carte or by theme as a simplified mode. If the gamers at the table feel that is troublesome in some way they can certainly deign to permit the DM to silo or otherwise restrict feats as a House Rule - or even just agree among the players not to take such an option. If enough customers find it necessary or typical to have to ban, edit, or restrict feats in the Core PHB then the publisher has probably screwed something up.

- Marty Lund

 

[mlund]

One of the goals of Next has been stated to be moving power back to the DM and setting design has been, traditionally, one of the things falling under the description of the DM.

The shift is to empower the DM with options for customizing the game at the table through optional rules modules instead of Game Designers making a ton of assumptions and building a large and monolithic system. Hence the difference between Core and Modules.

There's never been a stated goal of "moving power back" from the Players to the DM. The rules could never create such a shift because no player or DM has any power that wasn't put there by group consensus. The only thing the rules can do is help manage expectations and make options easier to implement mechanically.

The most common default expectation I've ever noticed in all my years of D&D is that when someone tries to put together a game and has you design a character they aren't going to take a Sharpee to the PHB or a player's character sheet without trying to sell you on it with something other than "because I'm the DM and it's my game."

Heck, most of the time it is as simple as saying, "It's a lot of work to put this together and that feature is a giant headache to run. Can we do this instead?" That's always worked for me as a DM. But if those headaches start getting too frequent, too large, or too common between DMs at different tables I start to question things like how good a fit the game itself is or how good a fit as DM I am.

More to the thread point: If I have to ride herd over ala carte feat selections in the Core rules I think the designers made a mistake designing one or more feats.

Upon receiving the invitation, it is then the player's decision to decide if they can abide by the limits. If they can, they participate. If not, they don't.

In most well-functioning groups it isn't a binary situation. If someone objects to a limit they argue the point to the group. If a compromise or consensus can't be reached one or more people leave the group for greener pastures. I've seen cases where compromise meant the would-be DM turns in the screen and plays while someone else does the thankless heavy lifting. I've seen the rare ugly case where the DM was kicked out or stormed out because he couldn't cope with not being the boss of everyone else at the table.

Most of the time, though, people are at the table because they enjoy cooperating to play a game and they do it for fun - ergo, they tend to be a bit more agreeable than all that.

- Marty Lund

 

[Greg K]

The shift is to empower the DM with options for customizing the game at the table through optional rules modules instead of Game Designers making a ton of assumptions and building a large and monolithic system. Hence the difference between Core and Modules.

"Mearls: In general, we’re pushing more power into the DM’s hands to run the sort of campaign that he or she prefers"

Note it states power in the DM's hand to run the campaign that they prefer. It is not power to the group

There's never been a stated goal of "moving power back" from the Players to the DM. The rules could never create such a shift because no player or DM
has any power that wasn't put there by group consensus. The only thing the rules can do is help manage expectations and make options easier to implement mechanically.

From the Dungeon Master's Guide AD&D 1e (Ernest Gary Gygax, 1979)

What follows herein is strictly for the eyes of you, the campaign referee. As the creator and ultimate authority in your respective game, this work is written as one Dungeon Master equal to another. " (from the preface. (emphasis mine)

Afterword
BE CERTAIN THE GAME IS MASTERED BY YOU AND NOT BY YOUR PLAYERS. WITHIN THE BROAD PARAMETERS GIVEN IN THE ADVANCED DUNGEONS 8 DRAGONS VOLUMES, YOU ARE CREATOR AND FINAL ARBITER.

When you build your campaign you will tailor it to suit your personal tastes
[/B]
(Emphasis mine)


AD&D 2e
"What Does the DM Do?: The Dungeon Master has many hats to wear in the course of a game session. The DM is the rules moderator, the narrator, a player of many different characters, and the primary creator of the game’s world, the campaign, and the adventure."


"The DM's "active hand" extends even to the rules. Many decisions about your campaign can be made by only one person: you. Tailor your campaign to fit your own style and the style of your players."

AD&D 3e

"Let's start with the biggest secret of all: the key to Dungeon Mastering. (Don't tell anybody, okay) The secret is your're in charge" (3e DMG/ p.6) and "You decide how the rules work, which rules to use, and how strictly to adhere to them. That kind of in charge" (3e DMG/ p.6).

- "Good players will alway recognize that you have ultimate authority over the game mechanics, even superceding somethng in a rule book" (3e DMG/ p.9)


Every one of those edition states (1e-3e) the DM is in charge of designing the campaign and altering the written rules to their preference not the players. If players have an issue with that or DMs want to relinquish the control that is on them. However, it does not change that the DM is considered the authority over the game in those editions

The most common default expectation I've ever noticed in all my years of D&D is that when someone tries to put together a game and has you design a character they aren't going to take a Sharpee to the PHB or a player's character sheet without trying to sell you on it with something other than "because I'm the DM and it's my game."

Heck, most of the time it is as simple as saying, "It's a lot of work to put this together and that feature is a giant headache to run. Can we do this instead?" That's always worked for me as a DM. But if those headaches start getting too frequent, too large, or too common between DMs at different tables I start to question things like how good a fit the game itself is or how good a fit as DM I am.

More to the thread point: If I have to ride herd over ala carte feat selections in the Core rules I think the designers made a mistake designing one or more feats.



In most well-functioning groups it isn't a binary situation. If someone objects to a limit they argue the point to the group. If a compromise or consensus can't be reached one or more people leave the group for greener pastures. I've seen cases where compromise meant the would-be DM turns in the screen and plays while someone else does the thankless heavy lifting. I've seen the rare ugly case where the DM was kicked out or stormed out because he couldn't cope with not being the boss of everyone else at the table.

Most of the time, though, people are at the table because they enjoy cooperating to play a game and they do it for fun - ergo, they tend to be a bit more agreeable than all that.

- Marty Lund