On taking power away from the DM

[Glyfair]

The 1st edition DMG can be read as explicitly encouraging a highly adversarial role for the DM - beating the players down with every tool available - in order to continually challenge the players so that it might produce what the text calls 'superior play'.

And if you read The Dragon you got even more of this. Gary was particularly strong on "don't give the players a break." You read lots on players being out-of-control and tips for DMs reigning it in. There were tips on keeping players poor, stopping wizards from using powerful spells, changing monsters so they weren't predictable just to challenge the players ("the bunny rabbit jumps up and rips your head off with it's vorpal attack).

 

[Morrus]

Can we define a difference between 'acting like a jerk', and 'is a jerk'? Because I think that it is quite possible for someone to act like a jerk in some context or from time to time, without actually being a thoroughly unpleasant person.

Sure. And therfore to clarify: to this point I have only referred to people who "are jerks".

I believe that you persisted in arguing that if there was a problem it was because there was something mentally/spiritually wrong with the person, even when Reynard tried to assert that game play issues were at least a partial cause of the problem - not necessarily that the players were bad people.

You believe incorrectly. I argued that if there was something mentally/spiritually wrong with the person, WotC ain't gonna fix it.

Unless you say what you think the extent of the import I'm attaching to the rules is, I can't tell you whether you understand me or not.

It appeared to me that you were claiming that the rules issue was overriding...

I'm certainly not saying that the rules entirely create the social problems, but I think that they can contribute to them.

... but that clarification jives with my POV just fine.

So, I'll comprimise. If you have the time or inclination, why don't you do me the honor of stopping not saying what you are actually thinking even at the risk of being rude or sarcastic, so at least I'll know what you are thinking, and I'll try to remember this isn't a Mixed Martial Rhetoric ring.

Absolutely not. No rudeness on EN World; we can do the "abrasive" version elsewhere if you wish, but as far as rules go, that's inflexible. If you find that a barrier to communication, I'm sorry - but it ain't gonna change!

 

[Celebrim]

Essentially it's a "jerk DM" issue. However, I found there were more of that sort of DMs when the rules went out of their way to say "whatever the DMs says is right, don't question it." I've heard a lot of them specifically justify their actions with those phrases. Once the paradim softed so that it's acknowledged that the DMs don't have absolute say, some of those DMs became passable (and even good) DMs.

I think Glyfair and myself agree then that the 3rd edition is more player empowering than earlier editions. We just disagree over whether this is necessarily a good thing, and whether you agree over whether this is a good thing probably depends entirely on what your personal experiences are. If you tended to run into more problem DM's than problem players, then you tend to think that DM disempowerment is a good thing which leads to more functional social contracts because the DM's worst impulses are checked. If on the other hand, you ran into more problem players than problem DMs, then you tend to think DM disempowerment is a bad thing because it encourages the worst impulses in players, and leads to a social contract in which the DM puts in all the work but gets very little of the fun and does little more than validate the PC's desires.

My experience with the game puts me in to the latter category. I think first ediition gave some DM's some very bad advice. But I certainly miss that 'superior play' that EGG was trying to (and often failing) to describe, and I think 3rd editions teaches players bad habits, encourages players to metagame rather than game, and so forth. It's not usually a problem for me, but when I DM in wider environments you can really tell the difference between the older and newer players respect for the DM/assumptions of play/play skill compared not only to the older players, but to the younger players of former days. I'm not saying the newer players are bigger jerks, but they've definately got a different assumption of what is expected from them in play and what they can expect of the DM.

 

[Glyfair]

If on the other hand, you ran into more problem players than problem DMs, then you tend to think DM disempowerment is a bad thing because it encourages the worst impulses in players, and leads to a social contract in which the DM puts in all the work but gets very little of the fun and does little more than validate the PC's desires.

I disagree. I agree there are more problem players than DMs (purely because there are more players than DMs). However, dealing with a problem player is something that is much, much easier than dealing with a problem DM.

Assuming we haven't reached the point where walking away is the proper response, there are typically enough players (and usually the DM) to deal with the impulses of a problem player (or two) by various means. When the DM is a problem the solutions typically come down to dealing with it or walking away, even when all the players agree.

DMs have so many responsibilities (even in these days of the apparently evil* "player empowerment") that any significant flaw is magnified. Especially when magnified by control issues, because limiting the DMs control over the game in progress is an exercise in futility.

* By this I mean that whenever this term is used almost invariably someone is discussing how it "ruined the game."

 

[Celebrim]

Absolutely not. No rudeness on EN World; we can do the "abrasive" version elsewhere if you wish, but as far as rules go, that's inflexible. If you find that a barrier to communication, I'm sorry - but it ain't gonna change!

It's your 'house'.

But I'm afraid that I'm forever going to find people who can't be frank, who always leave what they are saying in the margins, who are being rude but trying thier best to be dissembling about it so that they have plausible deniability, to be more disrespectful and rude than those that occasionally blow thier top or put thier foot in thier mouth. And I'll similarly find abrasive words and actions that enable that sort of behavior, even if they have the very fine motive of wanting to further civil debate - because in fact it doesn't.

It appeared to me that you were claiming that the rules issue was overriding...but that clarification jives with my POV just fine.

Ahh, well, it appeared to me that you were claiming the the social issue was overriding, but that clarification jives with my POV just fine.

 

[Celebrim]

I disagree.

I know.

I agree there are more problem players than DMs (purely because there are more players than DMs). However, dealing with a problem player is something that is much, much easier to handle than a problem DM.

I can see your point, but I think you neglect that the DM has the most invested in the game. It is his 'table'. IMO, he owns the game by virtue of the investment he has in it. A player can realistically show up without any prep at all, but the DM likely poured heart, soul, and blood into the session (and $$ as well) even before it started. I believe that authority should match responcibility.

If you have alot of responcibility, you should have matching authority. The DM has the most important and most difficult position in the group. For that reason if no other, you as a player should respect and defer to his opinion. That isn't to say he's always right, but arguing about it there at the table is almost always the wrong response.

As a DM I strive to give to every DM I play under the same respect, deference, and enjoyment I'd like my players to give me. My personal opinion is that if you don't DM, you just don't get it. I very very very rarely have problems with players who've spent a significant time as DMs. They understand the demands of the job.

 

[Mouseferatu]

I don't think that's true at all. I've made errors running 3e - sending somewhat overpowered encounters at the PCs - that I wouldn't have made if I'd followed the CR system.

There's a difference between "making mistakes" and "bad DMing."

The rules can mitigate mistakes. The rules cannot mitigate for bad DMing--at least not to any comprehensive degree, which is what I was trying (and apparently failed) to get across. Yes, any given rules set can mitigate some elements of bad DMing, but no rules set can eliminate all of them.

 

[DragonLancer]

I so often see comments about how the latest edition of D&D has "taken power away from the DM." This usually seems to be considered a sad thing (and sometimes a bad thing).

I don't understand this concept. Please explain this idea of "DM power", and explain how DMs have lost it.

I don't know that taking power away from the DM is the right term, but IMO the sentiment is right. There is far too much material that appears in a players sourcebook that should be purely in the hands of the DM. Prestige classes are a prime example. When a player buys a book, they (not saying all) expect to use that material, when it is up to the DM to decide what and whether anything is allowed in his or her game. When players complain that they can't take X class, spell, feat or whatever, they infringe on the DM's power to dictate what fits his game.
I'm not saying that all players do that, but it must happen often enough or it wouldn't be a regular and sizable topic on messageboards across the net.

 

[Clavis]

The rest of your post I agree with, but this ... despite seeing this kind of claim repeatedly, I have to admit I don't understand it, and never really heard it spelled out coherently. Abused what? Is that really just an Old School thing (you mean, it doesn't happen regularly now?), or as someone mentioned earlier (and what I suspect) is it simply a "jerk DM" thing?

It seems to me to be a truism of human nature that whatever can be abused, eventually will be. The 1st Edition rules made the DM all-powerful, and very much encouraged one to play dastardly tricks upon the players. It was possible for players to be the victims of sadistic DMs with power issues. The upshot was that a good, creative DM could create a game that was much more fun and exciting than is possible under the 3rd edition RAW, because with fewer codified rules he could more easily do WHATEVER was required to keep the game fun. I am a supporter of a powerful DM, because I think that the upside is greater than the downside, but I do recognize why WOTC shifted the balance of power away from the DM by making more rules more explicit.

As an illustration, take The United States as compared to Saudi Arabia. Compared to the U.S., Saudi Arabia is relatively crime free. There are very extreme penalties for misbehavior, and they are enforced. Individual liberty is sacrificed for the good of the group.The United States, on the other hand, is a crazy patchwork with a lot of areas were it just isn't safe to walk down the street at night. The other side is that the US is still a creative, vibrant place capable of invention and innovation. Sometimes we can have safe and orderly, or we can have dangerous and dynamic, but we can't have both.

So, I am saying that while the powerful DM of 1st Edition does indeed carry with it the potential for abuse, I believe that its potential for greatness outweighs its potential for harm.

 

[Hussar]

I honestly do think that 3e has taken some power away from DM's. It seems pretty self evident to me.

Take jumping over a ditch.

In 1e, the DM might ad hoc a call (possibly a save vs Paralyzation which seemed to come up a lot) and you jump over the ditch.

In 2e, the DM might force you to have the Jump NWP, or he might ad hoc some sort of call a la 1e.

In 3e, the player rolls his Jump skill and tells the DM how far he jumped (barring any unknown circumstance modifiers of course).

In 3e, the DM has far less power. The rules dictate how far the player can jump, not the DM. There is no ad hoc fiat at all. Look at your modifiers, roll your skill check and you're done. You don't really even need the DM there at all, in that instance.

Where the problem lies, though, is many people talk about the rules empowering players. They don't. In none of the above examples was the player empowered. The player never got to determine his chances of success. In earlier editions, the DM dictated his chances, in 3e, the RULES dictated. At no point does the player get to dictate his chances. 3e takes power out of the hands of the DM, but, wraps it up nice and snug and keeps it inside the rules.

Where the DM retains his power is his ability to change the odds. Circumstance bonuses and penalties can radically change the odds. The players never act with 100% knowledge, only the DM does. The player doesn't know that the far side of that ditch is actually loose dirt and jumping over still lands him in the pit. The player doesn't know that this side is loose and he takes a -5 penalty to his jump check. That sort of thing is entirely the purview of the DM.

Does 3e take power from the DM that formerly resided in his hands? Yup. No arguement from me. Does it give that power to the players? Not even a little.