On taking power away from the DM

[Celebrim]

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.

This is an interesting thought, but while I can see the point, the reason I can't except this explanation it is that for this sort of example I don't feel disempowered at all. And the reason is pretty simple: I tended to make my ad hoc rulings systematic anyway. These decisions quickly became codified so that they would work every time in the exact same way. I don't see rules like 'how far can someone jump' as dictating to me. I see them as taking some of my work load off.

And as you said, I can always control this sort of thing anyway with generous or stingy circumstance modifiers - although really, its hard to foresee why I'd ever need to do so. What do I care how far players can jump, just so I know how far they can jump?

So, while you may be right about the 3rd edition rules moving power from the DM to the rules, that isn't really for me even close to being a source of irritation. It misses the point rather cleanly.

 

[Victim]

Of course it does. The player makes the character and decides how much Jump to take and can do a decent estimate of how far his character will expect to jump. He has more information about how hard it is to jump and more control over how well the character jumps.

 

[Glyfair]

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.

Is that so unreasonable? What else would you buy without the expectation that you would be able to use the material? That's a serious question. What else?

I'm not saying the material should necessarily be usable in any given campaign. However, a player should be able to go to the DM and say "I bought this book and want to use this prestige class" and expect the DM to find a way to allow its use, eventually (assuming a limited group with only one or two potential DM).

 

[Minicol]

That's the past of the medium -- as seen in computer games and "adventure board games". if that's the future, get the fires stoked to brand "Grognard" across my forehead.

I have already labeled myself a grognard.

Sure you can play without a DM : let's call this a wargame. Like in the old 70s counters and plastic maps type.

You can play without a DM : just forget the storytelling, the character interactions, the background, the world .... the roleplaying. Let's call this Diablo and forget all that makes a roleplaying game.

I can't wait to see 5.5e to see these brillant ideas put into action.

By the way, I have noticed that DMs are considerably more liberal in their spending than the players. As I already said : too bad my D&D budget was a sacred cow.

 

[Minicol]

Ask yourself, are there fewer good DMs around now than there were? Even WOTC concedes that fewer people want to run 3rd edition than previous editions. The company is now making fun of 3rd editions combat system in official advertising! I have refused to run the 3.X edition game for years now because I was having far less fun than I did under previous editions. "Loss of DM power" is perhaps just another way of saying loss of an enjoyable experience for the DM.

I remember a LGH game, where the party was assaulting a team of nasties in a primitive hut village. Party's mage "I fireball the hut, is it burning now ?
Me : Yes, it is.
- So it collapses ?
- No it doesn't
- Long rules argument (half an hour)/unfait DM / blablabla.
- Me so why do you want to burn the damn hut, anyways ?
- Mage : I want line of sight on the BBEG ! That's why ?
- You are a moron : you had line of sight since the beginning of the fight"

After this game, I boycotted LGH and told the problem players that no way I DM them again.

 

[Glyfair]

You can play without a DM : just forget the storytelling, the character interactions, the background, the world .... the roleplaying. Let's call this Diablo and forget all that makes a roleplaying game.

Actually, you can have all that without a DM (or at least without a single clear DM). There are a few indy RPGs that can do it. However, IMO, doing that isn't D&D.

That being said, there are certainly steps in that direction that can be taken and still be D&D.

 

[Geron Raveneye]

Is that so unreasonable? What else would you buy without the expectation that you would be able to use the material? That's a serious question. What else?

I'm not saying the material should necessarily be usable in any given campaign. However, a player should be able to go to the DM and say "I bought this book and want to use this prestige class" and expect the DM to find a way to allow its use, eventually (assuming a limited group with only one or two potential DM).

Did he buy the book from me? Yes? Then he can rightfully expect me to incorporate my own product into my campaign, or smack me around the ears with it because I sold him something useless (assuming the same limited group).

As long as he didn't, why do you think should he get to "expect" me to find a way to allow its use? I mean, seriously...why? Did he come up to me and go "Say, I'm planning to get this or that book tomorrow, because I'd love to use that PrC I've seen in a preview, is there any chance you would incorporate that into your game?"...because coming up to me after the purchase, waving a bill and going "Hey, I bought this, I think it's cool, I want to use it, so allow it already" is just going to get him a "You want to use it, you start your own game" as a first response. People like to state that D&D is a cooperative game...which is true. But then I do expect some cooperation from the player's side when he wants to integrate some of his ideas into my campaign, at least more than "But I shelled out $35 for it, and it's from WotC so it's OK, what's your problem?" that I read here and there in such discussions.

Of course (and it's weird this should have to be added in the first place), it all depends on HOW a player comes up to me, how he phrases his request, and how well the stuff he bought actually fits in my campaign world. Every D&D game is a bit of a give 'n' take thing...and usually, players should have a good idea about what fits in a campaign, and what not. But for some reason there is ALWAYS that one guy who thinks just because you agreed to one thing brought in from outside, you must agree to EVERYthing, including some obscure, unbalanced and overpowered class/PrC he found in some small D20 publisher's product...and who raises a big hullabaloo if you don't. And we all know how vocal minorities work.

But basically, that's part of what some posters here are talking about...the expectations of players who bought something from some D20 publisher that their DM should automatically let them use it, and the whining that happens when you simply say "No". That expectation wasn't as much there as long as mist stuff was marketed and aimed at DMs instead of at players...it was mostly the DM bringing in completely new material into the campaign. Or maybe that's just me, but I can remember the players in our group pitching in with a few bucks to get our DM a new supplement for his b-day or whenever, hoping he'll use it in our game next time. Is how I got my first D&D Gazetteer The Grand Duchy of Karameikos, at least.

The same goes, by the way, for the bitching you get when you tell some players "Yeah, I KNOW how the rule works in the PHB, but I'm changing it for this scenario, and no I don't think we should spend the next 2 hours to discuss why, how it impacts the rest of the rules, and what's the greater reason behind my change...just frelling ROLL that d20!" Not that you got less bitching in earlier editions...but with 3.X, players simply got a very solid foundation for their complaints and arguments when it came to countermand a DM decision. It effectively created a discussion floor that every uncodified DM's decision can be dragged out to be dissected...and a lot of players like to do so. Which simply cuts into gaming time, in the worst case, and creates a lot of DMs who simply don't want to bother actually thinking about the underlying rules anymore, or about how to improvise an especially complicated scene in order to keep it flowing, and just run them "by the book"...or not at all. In my area, one DM has switched to WHFRP 1E because his players got on his nerves too much, another is struggling with the fact that he tries to play 3.X by the book but keeps falling over some obscure rule he forgot, and a third simply went to HARP. Personally, I found that players actually change their behaviour from game to game...the same folks that are a nightmare in D&D 3E are managable in Shadowrun, for example, where most of the finer rules details are left to GM interpretation.

Of course, YMMV. And it most certainly will.

 

[MerricB]

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.

I'll add in another category the rules can help mitigate: inexperience.

I'm sure a lot of Monty Haul campaigns back in the day were because the D&D rules gave no guidelines as to what was a proper amount of magical treasure. A vorpal sword at level 1? Sure - the random table said it happened, so it did!

Cheers!

 

[DragonLancer]

Is that so unreasonable? What else would you buy without the expectation that you would be able to use the material? That's a serious question. What else?

I'm not saying the material should necessarily be usable in any given campaign. However, a player should be able to go to the DM and say "I bought this book and want to use this prestige class" and expect the DM to find a way to allow its use, eventually (assuming a limited group with only one or two potential DM).

When that player runs a game he can dictate what may be used, but not in my game. I'm open to discussion but for my campaign world I have a list of PrC's, spells and feats that may be taken. I, as DM, made that decision to keep a certain feel to the campaign. A lot of PrC's are IMO unnessecary, broken or just don't fit the campaign setting that I run.
This is the reason for this discussion, players expect to use almost whatever they want because they bought a book. That is an aspect of taking power from the DM, because he is then under pressure to accept it and thats no on.

Geron Raveneye has explained that better than I.

 

[Melan]

Much of this debate is over rules... while IME it has more, a lot more to do with changing game culture, and an increasingly fashionable view (especially in "indie" gaming, but present in the mainstream as well) that DM-player power relations are inherently unfair. More often than not, this view is accompanied by the view of "gamers" through the lens of a negative stereotype generously reinforced by mounds and mounds of urban legends mixed up with anecdotal evidence.

Simply, a lot of people have had huge trust problems with gaming some times ago, and companies started to listen.

Except the solutions they propose will never work. Social problems can only be solved through human interaction.