On taking power away from the DM

[WayneLigon]

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

I don't think it has been lost. What has been lost is the tone taken in early descriptions of the GM-Player dynamic. It often led to bad GMs thinking that the players were some sort of opponents; indeed, it's my opinion that the tone and presentation of the DM-Player dynamic caused a lot of people to be bad GMs. It taught that to them.

Go and read, oh, the first thirty issues or so of Knights of the Dinner Table. Yes, it's humor but the humor spins off the idea that lots of GMs really were taught that the style of Weird Pete and the Black Hands and to some extent BA was the way to go.

Another idea is that since the rules are more tightly written and better designed, that a player can more successfully show a GM that no, that rule doesn't work the way you think it does. Most of the 1E rules almost seem to be last minute reactions rather than reformulations. Rule is created. Rule is tested. Rule is broken by players. Rather than then go back ad say 'this rule was bad' and fixing the original rule, another was created to patch or band-aid the original rule. It was like once something was written down, then it couldn't be changed. Most people changed the rules, so when a GM said that a rule worked in X way, then most people took it at face value. They didn't know any better.

Now, though, if you change a rule you'd probably best be able to explain it and justify it. 'Because I want it that way' probably isn't going to cut it. It's very likely that the rule is in there and works the way it does for a very good and specific reason. I think some GMs - especially those raised in the 'old style' - aren't used to either explaining themselves or thinking in a deep and logical fashion about the reasoning behind the rules. They're used to patching and reacting rather than sitting down to logically work through how and why a rule works like that. They may well perceive someone who presents a successful arguement as 'taking away their power'.

 

[Andre]

I had committed the crime of "making stuff up" which, to my mind, is the DM's right and responsibility.

This is my concern. While codifying many previously unwritten rules can have good effects, I've reached the point where I tell the players up front that there will be times when the bad guys just don't follow those rules. This isn't to intended to be unfair, but to add mystery and frankly, so that I don't have to spend hours finding a "legal" way to have something cool happen in the game.

 

[HellHound]

No, I get the pont; my view is that such situations are entirely social issues. If your DM is a "jerk", why would you socialise with him?

+posrep. AAA+ Poster. Would gladly read posts again.

 

[Victim]

No, I get the pont; my view is that such situations are entirely social issues. If your DM is a "jerk", why would you socialise with him?

It's not just about being a jerk. Imperfect information about other players' wants (especially when they might not know exactly what would be the most fun themselves) and personal biases can make for bad GMing even if no one is being a jerk.

 

[Mouseferatu]

It's not just about being a jerk. Imperfect information about other players' wants (especially when they might not know exactly what would be the most fun themselves) and personal biases can make for bad GMing even if no one is being a jerk.

True. But it's also true that no amount of emphasis on the rules can mitigate bad GMing, and that spending too much time/effort trying to do so can create situations where the game's harder to run even for good DMs.

At a certain point, every game simply has to acknowledge that the rules are (to an extent) guidelines, that the DM is the final arbiter of the rules--but that, of course, the players are the final arbiter as to whether or not they're going to play.

DMs need to learn that fiat only works if it increases fun for everyone, not just the DM (though that fun can potentially be delayed to later in the adventure), and that using it just to screw over the players is poor form. And even the most rules-centric player needs to learn that "fiat" is not a four-letter word. Well, okay, it is a four-letter word, but... You know what I mean.) But trying to write a rules system where fiat can't happen is an exercise in both futility and monotony.

 

[Quasqueton]

Just a couple of notes from the current DMG:

ADJUDICATING
When everyone gathers around the table to play the game, you're in charge. That doesn't mean you can tell people what to do outside the boundaries of the game, but it does mean that you're the final arbiter of the rules within the game. Good players will always recognize that you have ultimate authority over the game mechanics, even superseding something in a rulebook. Good DMs know not to change or overturn a published rule without a good, logical justification so that the players don't rebel.

THE BOTTOM LINE
You're in charge. This is not being in charge as in telling everyone what to do. Rather, you get to decide how your player group is going to play this game, when and where the adventures take place, and what happens. That kind of being in charge.

From these responses in this thread (and the context from other threads), it seems that "DM power" comes from the Players not knowing the rules. If the rules of the game are open for the Players to read and know (and expect), the DM has less "power" than with a game where the rules are mostly hidden from the Players so they can't read and know (and expect) them. Am I understanding this correctly?

"DM power" is the ability for a DM to "cheat" without the Players realizing it? How about for those previous-edition DMs (like me) who never (or very, very rarely) cheated (and then regretted it) -- NPCs got away or won (or got caught or lost) by the same rules the Players and PCs worked with? Did I loose "power" by the new edition, too? ("Power" that I never exercised with the previous editions?)

Quasqueton

 

[(Psi)SeveredHead]

"DM power" is the ability for a DM to "cheat" without the Players realizing it?

No, that's using DM fiat improperly (and is, at least allegedly, one reason why the ability to impose DM fiat has been taken away).

However, I think DMs should have the ability to (for an example) make a new monster or give a monster a new ability or create a new feat never seen before by the players. Of course, that should be balanced and not just an attempt to "screw" the PCs; as players know the rules better now, something unbalanced like that will draw their attention and spark reasoned criticism. (And if it's not broken, it might still draw criticism, just because the players feel they have a better idea of how to oppose it, if they're inclined to do so.)

How about for those previous-edition DMs (like me) who never (or very, very rarely) cheated (and then regretted it) -- NPCs got away or won (or got caught or lost) by the same rules the Players and PCs worked with? Did I loose "power" by the new edition, too? ("Power" that I never exercised with the previous editions?)

I assume most DMs don't cheat in any edition, but what did you do in corner cases?

The DMG might say that when the DM runs the game that they are the final arbiter of the rules, but that doesn't really work in a lot of cases. You say "I rule this way" and they try to interpret the corner case "that way" using rules arguments as cogent as the ones you're using. They feel more empowered to argue this way. This is especially true if someone is doing something cool or unexpected (including if the DM does it).

FATE is a system that, IMO, handles this much better. Doing something cool gives you a bonus, but it's always the same bonus (+2); players can do something cool without having to argue with the DM, and NPCs can do something cool without sparking complaints from players.

 

[Psion]

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).

Whoever is saying this needs to read some of the current spate of independant games, whereupon they may come back and apologize.

More seriously, Robin Laws is known to state in his book on GMing that games like D&D which thoroughly quantify what you can do "empowers players" because there is less room for GM fiat. Whether this is less or more power for the GM is a matter of perspective. It could be that these explicit definitions, when respected, could give the GM more, or it could give the GM less. But I think for the era in which it was written, where fiat-heavy independent games were the norm, and even larger games like (old) World of Darkness were routinely run "without dice rolls" and just "eyeing the pips", it was true enough.

 

[Quasqueton]

I think DMs should have the ability to (for an example) make a new monster or give a monster a new ability or create a new feat never seen before by the players.

Do DMs not have this ability? I've created new stuff (monsters, spells, etc.) for every game I've ever run (D&D or other), and I've seen new stuff in every game I've ever played in (D&D or other). The only times I've *ever* heard a complaint about the existence of new stuff for the monsters was, ironically, in two previous-edition games.

In a BD&D game (I was the DM), a Player complained about a "Dungeon Level II" monster appearing as a wondering monster on the first level of the dungeon.

In an AD&D1 game (I was not the DM, I was a Player), a Player referred to a special magic item the BBEG had as a "gimme" power.

You say "I rule this way" and they [the Players] try to interpret the corner case "that way" using rules arguments as cogent as the ones you're using. They feel more empowered to argue this way.

This sense of "empowerment" to argue comes from having the core rules out in the open so the Players can know them?

We had plenty of rules arguments in my previous-edition games. Plenty. Hell, I was sometimes the one doing starting the argument, as a Player.

(I would point out that I have very few rules arguments in my current-edition game, but I think that is more a matter of playing with older, more mature gamers now days compared to the previous days.)

I'm really just not seeing this "DM power" thing. Some players in the "old days" played adventures basically with no one as DM. I know some people who DMed for their own PCs. They could do this because they or all of them knew the rules (and the rule books even supported this concept with the random dungeon charts in the DMG). Shouldn't these two options have been completely impossible if there was a difference in Player vs. DM "power"?

Quasqueton

 

[Thunderfoot]

I can see one area that "power" has been taken away from DMs or at least lessens the cerebral play of yesteryear by way of the following example:

DM: You enter a 20' by 30' room from the south, a table and three chairs are in the center, a fireplace stands against the north wall, a picture hangs above the fireplace. A door leads to the west. What are your actions? DMs Notes: If the players look behind the painting they will find a wall safe, if they search the backwall of the fireplace specifically they will find a loose brick with a +1 dagger behind it.)

AD&D 1e Players
1 (Fighter): I check the table for any papers that the wizard may need to decipher.
2 (Thief): I listen at the door using my ear cone in case there are any enemies waiting in the hall.
3 (Cleric): I cast Detect Magic concentrating my search on the table and chairs, if nothing is there I move to the fireplace and do the same.
4 (Wizard): Describe the painting, please?

D&D 3.5 Players:
1 - 4: Spot check does anything look out of place? 1: 20 2: 35 3: 7 4: 41
2: I Search the fireplace and roll a 19 on my check with my modifiers that a 36.

While it may not seem like a big difference, the biggest difference is that the DM has less control over situations. A Search or Spot check roll (which is player rules knowledge) can pretty much mean that they can find any hidden object without a real clue where to look by just rolling a few dice. Obviously this is example is poor, because there are many more variables and I didn't want to write a novel for a post, but it isn't so much a "cheating" thing as the DM is roped into 'giving' things to the PCs just because they roll a few dice instead of using problem-solving skills. It has, in essence, "dumbed-down" the game a bit. It really isn't a big issue, more of a flavor thing than anything else, but to some oldster (myself included) it does bring the quality of the game down a bit.

Does it mean I had more fun or that I am somehow cheated out of something, in a way, yes, but only if you can remember playing another way. I think the biggest DM rules fiasco came with PrCs. Great idea, poorly executed. In the DMG, it states that a PrC should be "Campaign Specific", and describes them as optional, but then WotC and every third party company wrote PrCs and published them in PLAYER LITERATURE. Nearly every player I have ever met balks when you say that all published PrCs are unavailable, "because its in the rules", when originally the concept was to make those campaign specific organizations into PrCs for flavor. When a DM says that a rule in a published book is not going to be used (whether or not its optional) often the new breed of rules lawyer shouts foul, and can now back up the argument with "written proof". Often it has nothing to do with having "power" over the party (although I admit it has happened and I do not deny the proof of it) but more powerlessness in the face of the party gets what the party wants and damn the DMs notion of what the game world is supposed to be. In my Opinion, its a flavor killer more than a real power over the party issue.