Of Mooks, Plot Armor, and ttRPGs

@Lanefan

The collective play group absolutely can change any rules or redesign the games they play prior to playing to them (just as they may with any game [see Monopoly]). The GM has no inherent privileges therein. The nature of the role itself, including the authority to alter said rules, is defined by the game we all agree to play together. Kit bashing / rules hacking is just as pervasive in the parts of the community that do rely on more formal rules for the GM. It just does not place the authority to alter the game solely in the GM's hands.

Before we agree to play a game together we are all just people. No one is the GM outside the play of the game.
 

log in or register to remove this ad


All I can say is, if I'm in a game and the GM says "because GM", I will no longer be in that game. Games where GMs and players work together to create a mutually enjoyable experience, I'm on board with.
Does that mean that the DM doesn't get to make any decisions the players don't agree with if they want you at the table?
 

On the first bold word, I'm not "assuming." I'm "proposing." My proposition is "what if there is design tightness and resistance to (foundational - you omitted this) modification in a TTRPG system (just as there is in biological systems, plenty of engineered systems and in plenty of art). You've inverted what is happening here. You are assuming that there is no such thing as a level of design tightness and resistance to modification. You then index this assumption (that, given our interactions over the years, is clearly the cornerstone of your ideas around TTRPGs) when you relate your ideas on "the essential philosophy/culture of TTRPGs (or something like it)" directly thereafter (the second bolded part after "assuming").

Your position (which I already knew) is "there is no such thing as system's say (or designer's say) because GM."

I already knew that about you. I'm curious why that is.
Why that is is because, in my view, part of the GM's role is to set the parameters and rules of the game...though of course this can also be done by mutual discussion and agreement among all; which means the players come into it as well, muddying the waters even further as to who "says".

Note I'm talking here largely about what happens before play even begins, when the GM and-or group is deciding on a system and-or if-how to modify it.
So this is actually useful to our conversation. This is what I was trying to tease out.

So, beyond the TTRPG essentialism/"beating heart of TTRPGing" you're espousing above (and have espoused many times before), you're actually talking about how the sausage is made here. So, presumably, the driver's experience, music consumption, and art consumption might/would all change, at the macro-cultural level (just as you've specified your idea of a macro-cultural essentialism of TTRPGs), if humans felt (I use the term "felt" here very deliberately) that they had the "the chops" & means (skills, tools, kit). All cars, music, and art would change status from "completed works" to something like "pending DIY projects?"
Pretty much, yes; people could put their own stamp on things and see if they could do them better. And some in fact would make improvements, while many would not.

Obviously things like copyright and patent laws etc. make much of this merely hypothetical. But take, for example, a band doing a cover of someone else's song. The new version could be better, worse, or note-for-note the same as the original, but it's not the original: that cover band has taken that song and put their own stamp on it, even if they didn't create/write the song themselves.

If I had the (probably ridiculous amount of) money it'd need, I'd love to be able to take an ordinary car and get it modified such that it more closely does what I want it to do in the manner I want it done.
Do you think that might occur? If you don't think that might occur, maybe break out why TTRPGs are particularly unique here in the way that cars & driving experience and music and art consumption are not (indexing the owner/primary participant relationship with them if you would...because that most closely maps to something like your personal usage of "GM").
Why TTRPGs are unique here is that - in comparison with art, music, cars, etc. - many (most?) people do have the chops and available means to modify them and make them more bespoke to their own wishes/needs/desires.

And further, where even in their infancy most games - and most products in general - are presented and marketed (intentionally or otherwise) as "here it is, take it or leave it", and thus that's what we as consumers have become accustomed to; RPGs - particularly D&D - were initially presented as more "here's a mostly-complete framework, make what you will of it"*. They expected and in some cases required modifications and additions in order to become a) bespoke to the table and b) in some cases, playable; and that process would almost universally be done by the GM either before play began or ad-hoc during play as issues arose. (remember, in theory the DMG was off-limits to players)

And so, the philosophy of RPG rules - in rather stark contrast to the rules of most other games - being seen as malleable to suit each table and-or GM came about; helped immensely by the fact that all it took to do so was a pencil, some paper, and some thought and time. Thus, in some ways the GM and the system became one and the same.

* - Gygax in his 1e DMG was famously conflicted on this, arguing for uniformity in some places then exhorting DMs to kitbash the system in others; looking at it now I suspect this conflict arose from an inability to square his own tendencies as a designer/kitbasher with his/TSR's desire for uniformity in order to sell more books.
Can you engage with those questions/propositions above?
Is the above what you seek? If not, please clarify.
* In case its not clear why I used "felt" above, I would hope its abundantly clear that the human expert class is overrun with a hubris that renders their perception of their own expertise significantly more a burden than a boon (even in the discipline that they're supposed to be an expert in). Ironically (given that you believe GMs DIYing is the backbone, or near enough, of TTRPGing), I would say GMs in the TTRPG community are like the paragon of this phenomenon.
Not sure if you're saying that "experts don't feel that they are experts" or that "experts think they're more expert than they are". In either case it doesn't much matter; the key point is the ability to be - and feel - able to do these things rather than the quality of the result as seen by anyone other than the doer.
 

The collective play group absolutely can change any rules or redesign the games they play prior to playing to them (just as they may with any game [see Monopoly]). The GM has no inherent privileges therein. The nature of the role itself, including the authority to alter said rules, is defined by the game we all agree to play together. Kit bashing / rules hacking is just as pervasive in the parts of the community that do rely on more formal rules for the GM. It just does not place the authority to alter the game solely in the GM's hands.

Before we agree to play a game together we are all just people. No one is the GM outside the play of the game.
Abso-friggin'-lutely! The table decides together. And Fate is almost infinitely kit-bashable! In fact, if you want a magic system beyond the most basic, you'll probably have to make it yourself (not that it's terribly hard).

Cortex Prime requires kit-bashing to even play! As published, it's the toolbox to make a game, not a completed game itself.
Does that mean that the DM doesn't get to make any decisions the players don't agree with if they want you at the table?
Apples and oranges. Once the GM has started actually running the game, they have authority over the things the game gives them authority over. That means their word on the subject carries. Naturally, if they're being a complete jerk about it, that's a different matter. I don't play with people like that, life is too short.

But deciding which game to play, which rules to use, what genre, and so on? The table decides. In my group, we design the game world together in session 0. (Naturally, the GM is free to add secret flourishes afterward.)
 

You're thinking of things like 4e's minions, I guess. Not a design I favour at all, but I see what you're getting at.

Well, nothing requires you to like it. I was just noting that "mooks=no challenge" is not routinely the way designs use those. They're there for the joy of being able to fight through hordes, but not to be a waste of time; they actually function as a challenge.
 

All I can say is, if I'm in a game and the GM says "because GM", I will no longer be in that game. Games where GMs and players work together to create a mutually enjoyable experience, I'm on board with.

This is where I often sit with a leg on both sides of this camp. I've publicly stated that the automatic assumption the GM deserves some authority on metapower in a game is both outdated and generally a negative drag on the hobby.

But that said, when I'm GMing, while I'm willing to share power with my players (I often wish they'd take on a bit more, honestly), there are also things where, even if the majority wants it, are a bridge too far for me. Now I realize in some story games and related, this doesn't mean anything particularly special since the game is being developed as it goes to some degree, and its far from impossible for someone else to just pick up the reins. But in the (I think; I'm still not entirely sure I'm using the term right) neotrad games I mostly run, in practice this means that my displeasure at a development has more weight than the players because they can't, in practice, just pick up where I've left off because they don't really know what that is (and would have trouble doing so even if I gave them all my notes since at least some of it is only in my head).

So you could argue that in some case I'm effectively saying "Because GM" simply exercising my right to not play in a game going in ways I dislike.
 

I took "because GM" to mean "arrogantly unwilling to give reasons or listen to players' points, Do It Because I Said So In Dad Voice", which I assuredly wouldn't put up with either. Maybe I'm wrong about @niklinna's intent.

But yeah, if the GM ain't happy, ain't nobody happy. They're taking the trouble to run the game, one shouldn't as a player be belligerent.

I do expect the GM to listen and to at least be willing to consider changing their mind if it's called for. They're human too, and can forget or overlook things that have been established.

Also, as mentioned, in story games the GM's role is often a bit more circumscribed. The fiction is generally everybody's responsibility.
 

What do you think about this kind of element in a game? When a serious consequence is going to be applied to a character, the player is given an option: character death, or significant change. Would you say this leads to less consequence or more? Why?
This is a bit to vague for me to answer.

Well now you can proceed with the knowledge of what people mean when they say "system says". There are many games and gamers who don't consider the GM to be the final say about the game in all ways. There are those of us who view the rules as not optional, but rather something to be followed as much as possible.
I know well there are people that blindly follow the rules on the page. I just wanted to make sure that is what you were talking about.
Considering your past comments about how you railroad your players all the time to get the plot you want, because your players are not interested enough in anything other than their PC living and so they just want to get to the next fight... in other words the lack of any consequence other than PC death means that anything else is pointless to their interest... I thought you'd benefit from an explanation of how that stuff actually can matter to others.
I do have carefully chosen good players. It's just unlike, as many others have said, I play games with a wide verity of people, not all of them great players.
Perhaps there's a reason your players are disinterested in anything other than fighting and so you have to railroad them from one encounter to the next. Perhaps that reason is the way you run the game.

Perhaps not. Maybe you have nothing to gain from this discussion at all. That's fine. But at the very least, you should at least realize that not everyone runs a game the same way you do. Stop assuming we all are doing what you are doing.
That's doubtful, as they don't know. And the typical player that is not active on the 'net does not have the whole Railroad Trigger.

What are the limits to these things (the decision to make changes vs deference to the design platform and its results)?
I wish I could respond, but you just lost me nearly everywhere.

If I buy a car, and want to say put in a much better radio sound system, do I spot ans think about some car designer and how they "thought" the factor radio and such was "so great". Well, no

If I buy a painting do I take it home and alter it? No, can't say I've ever done that.

When it comes to any game, I'm a rules are suggestions type person.

Side note: it'll be interesting to see what the upcoming D&D movie does with this - whether or not the main characters have an infinite Plot-AC value. I'm not holding my breath, but I've been surprised before.
It's a movie made for kids, so no death other then they might do a soft death for an old white male character like Obi Wan.
In fairness, I've yet to encounter any who specifically want Mook Foes, which I take to mean foes that put up little or no real opposition. IME even those (fortunately few!) players I've seen who more or less want Auto-Success still want worthy opponents who need some in-character effort to take down.
Well, it is rare for a player to be so honest and direct and say "I want weak easy foes". A lot of DMs agree with the players about easy mook encounters, so the whole game is easy. The players don't need to say anything. Though in most games it is very easy for a DM to make things hard as the players will set things up that way.
 

Ha. I just remembered a classic example of the GM forgetting something really important.

My street-level superhero has just found out about a really extreme threat to the entire city. Before doing anything else, he orders his teenage son (who has undeveloped instinctive fighting and regeneration powers) to go home and meet family friend Jerry, who will take him out of state. Son grumpily complies and runs into muggers on the way home.

GM: "You know, I'm not sure Jerry will take this seriously enough. He might chalk it up to you just being paranoid and decide to not whisk David off."

Me: "Aren't you forgetting something?"

GM: "What?"

Me: "David's showing up with a bullet hole in him and a ruined, bloody shirt." (He got better! Quickly.)

GM: "Oh for...! You're right, of course."

Me: "That has a way of concentrating the imagination."

GM: "On the contrary! It has a way of concentrating the will. The imagination tends to go all over the place!"

Me: "...Touché."

(From The Shadow Knows!)
 

Remove ads

Top