Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="CuRoi" data-source="post: 5656522" data-attributes="member: 98032">Well, it looks like some great discussion has ocurred and I have been unable to sit down long enough to post a decent response! I'll try to not rehash anything you guys have touched on too much, but answer a few specific questions. I'll concede up front that as mostly a lurker, there is a vocabulary and definition of certain terms which are used here that I don't have a firm grasp on yet so this most likely contributes to crossing wires. Not sure I see how discussing what a DM/Game is or is not supposed to be is irrelevant to whether a DnD game is illusion that is dependent on the DM. Sure, it is a discussion a bit closer to theory than practical matters, but I still don't see it as an non-constructive avenue.  I was inspired enough to look back through the 4 DMGs I've got and try to see how the books framed the role. Honestly, I don't see in any case from AD&D to 4e that the DM is described as anything short of a teller of the story.  That said, there are printed guides on DMing. It seems a lot less theoretical that we should at least know the basics of what a DM is "supposed to be". Sure, there will be variations to one degree or another. And sure, each guide does have a slightly different spin of course.  The topic of "illusion" on part of the DM is handled a touch differently in each guide from what I can see but they all have a common thread. Some flat out tell you it's ok to fudge rolls (infrequently). Some skip that and tell you precisely how to be a good "storyteller" by controlling pacing, dealing with unique challenges not covered in whatever pre-game prep you have done, etc. However, none describe the DM as a detached, neutral entity that just rolls dice and adjudicates rules (thus the opening for a discussion on "illusion"). From what I can see, all encourage you to tell a story of some sort and the books provide specific guidance on how to do it.   Like I said, it was splitting hairs perhaps. But as an example. If someone says they play round-robin style where players each take broad control of things, describe the events and then players vote on the described outcome, I'd call that completely collaborative where the DM has little investment/control of the "story" (barring my presumably flawed definition of story). In fact in games like that, the idea of a "GM" is really defined in a completely different manner. Most DnD games I have seen/been a part of, usually require the players to rely on the DM's input either before or after they make decisions. That input can be from the DM's head or from a pre-printed source, and often from dice rolls, but however you look at it, the DM is sort of filtering it through their knowledge of the rules, their assumptions about the setting, and their interpretations of events. At least that is how I am interpreting the idea of "illusion" in the OP. I didn't mean to say you couldn't do something like a completely collaborative story with DnD. But IMO the rules implicit in DnD make this pretty tricky to pull off (and I'd never try it - I'd just go to a more open system for that). Just things like the level/power curve alone means the players simply can't affect or interact with certain parts of the campaign/plot/story/adventure as easily as they may want to until certain conditions are met - conditions largely controlled by the DM.</blockquote>

Verification