On taking power away from the DM

[Quasqueton]

Perhaps you could explain to me what you were deeply thinking about in that thread, because I think I feel safe in assuming you were thinking pretty complex thoughts about something.

That thread doesn't have anything to do with DM power or social contracts or jerk DMs. It was about understandings and verbal communication between DMs and Players.

Quasqueton

 

[Quasqueton]

D&D3 DMG, page 6

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.

D&D3 DMG, page 8

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 thi game, when and where the adventures take place, and what happens. That kind of being in charge.

Quasqueton

 

[SavageRobby]

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.

See, I just don't buy this. A DM in any edition is powerful; they set difficulties, players NPCs and monsters, etc. A DM in any edition could decide the local nobility was against the players and try to throw them in jail. A DM in any edition could sink a boat the players are on and drown them all. An DM in any edition that wants to be antagonistic and deadly can be.

But, a DM in - any edition - can't create players. For there to be a sadistic DM, there have to be players willing to be the victims. Its always been pretty simple: don't like your DM? Don't play with 'em. Simple.


(I also don't buy that 1E catered to this. I've read the DMG, I've read the Dragon articles, and I certainly didn't come out with those impressions. I do see a lot of advice on dealing with munchkins - a facet of gaming that seemingly hasn't changed much in 30 years - and perhaps that is the advice people are construing as "How to be a killer DM in 10 easy lessons".)

 

[Henry]

See, I just don't buy this. A DM in any edition is powerful; they set difficulties, players NPCs and monsters, etc.

This is true, on one level - on another, quite a few old-school DMs lament the fact that there is now one, single, consistent way to handle a given event where there wasn't one previously. How many creatures can the Behir gobble up? The dragon can't swallow you whole? The book says it can't. All it takes to make a flaming sword is this spell, a guy with a feat, and 4,000 gp? What about the red dragon's blood, the blessings of Imix, and the meteoric starmetal? All these are spelled out now, so the arbitrary methods of a given past DM now have something that a player can stand up to and say, "that's not the right way, anymore."

More practically, a DM can also disagree with the way to handle an action. He had his own grappling rules that he had been using for years; now, the grappling rules look like THIS, and they're in his opinion twice as complicated as they could be. Yet his players might insist that, because they're in the book, they're the right way to do it, now, and according to those rules, he shouldn't change them without a good reason.

(I also don't buy that 1E catered to this. I've read the DMG, I've read the Dragon articles, and I certainly didn't come out with those impressions. I do see a lot of advice on dealing with munchkins - a facet of gaming that seemingly hasn't changed much in 30 years - and perhaps that is the advice people are construing as "How to be a killer DM in 10 easy lessons".)

I agree. Some old quotes:

"You do have the right to overrule the dice at any time if there is a particular course of events you would like to have occur. In making such a decision you should never[emphasis Gary's] seriously harm the party or and NPC with your actions." - DMG p. 110

"Now and then a player will die through no fault of his own... In the long run you should let such things pass as the players will kill more than one opponent with their their own freakish rolls at some later time. Yet you do have the authority to arbitrate the situation. You can rule that the player, instead of dying, is knocked unconscious, loses a limb, is blinded in one eye... It is very demoralizing to the players to lose a cared-for player character when they have played well." - DMG p.110


To me, it comes back to playing with good people, who want to work together, or playing with someone who wants to take avantage of the others in the group, whether player or DM.

 

[Clavis]

See, I just don't buy this. A DM in any edition is powerful; they set difficulties, players NPCs and monsters, etc. A DM in any edition could decide the local nobility was against the players and try to throw them in jail. A DM in any edition could sink a boat the players are on and drown them all. An DM in any edition that wants to be antagonistic and deadly can be.

But, a DM in - any edition - can't create players. For there to be a sadistic DM, there have to be players willing to be the victims. Its always been pretty simple: don't like your DM? Don't play with 'em. Simple.


(I also don't buy that 1E catered to this. I've read the DMG, I've read the Dragon articles, and I certainly didn't come out with those impressions. I do see a lot of advice on dealing with munchkins - a facet of gaming that seemingly hasn't changed much in 30 years - and perhaps that is the advice people are construing as "How to be a killer DM in 10 easy lessons".)

I only believe that it was more possible for the DM to be a jerk in 1st ed, not that he was encouraged to be one. Yes, he was supposed to play tricks and withhold information, not to be a jerk, but to create thrills and maintain mystery. I think that all in all, the 1st edition allowed for a much better game experience. The patchwork nature of the rules, and the fact that the players weren't supposed to know the majority of them, allowed for quick rulings without needing to break momentum to open up the books. Since every system was different, task resolutions could be changed at will without worrying that you were going to run into a web of interconnected rules.

Remember, I'm a supporter of the strong DM! I only wanted to make it clear to those on the other side that I recognize the legitimacy of their position, although I disagree with it.

 

[RFisher]

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).

While I've probably written more than I should have about (against) the 3e designers' intention to "take the DM out of the equation"...

Among the people I play 3e with, the DM has not lost any "power".

 

[SavageRobby]

Remember, I'm a supporter of the strong DM! I only wanted to make it clear to those on the other side that I recognize the legitimacy of their position, although I disagree with it.

I know. And I agree with most of what you've written in this thread. I just don't agree that 1E is more prone to "killer DMs", a (mis)conception I see bandied about quite a bit.

 

[Hussar]

*snip*

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.

Actually, I was responding to the OP, not you, so, I'm not sure how I missed the point.

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 do agree that DM's have lost some power (although less power does not equal powerless), but, I strongly disagree with the idea that the player has gained that power. Even the counter example of the player who puts his slots into Jump really hasn't gained anything. He's spending a resource to make himself better at jumping at the cost of other skills. He still cannot control his odds. The odds are dictated by the rules and modified by the DM. While he can increase his odds of success, he can only do so in ways that are again, dictated by the rules. At no point can he declare a success.

 

[Reynard]

Some old quotes:

"You do have the right to overrule the dice at any time if there is a particular course of events you would like to have occur. In making such a decision you should never[emphasis Gary's] seriously harm the party or and NPC with your actions." - DMG p. 110

"Now and then a player will die through no fault of his own... In the long run you should let such things pass as the players will kill more than one opponent with their their own freakish rolls at some later time. Yet you do have the authority to arbitrate the situation. You can rule that the player, instead of dying, is knocked unconscious, loses a limb, is blinded in one eye... It is very demoralizing to the players to lose a cared-for player character when they have played well." - DMG p.110


To me, it comes back to playing with good people, who want to work together, or playing with someone who wants to take avantage of the others in the group, whether player or DM.

Wait. I thought the old DMG was a screed about how killing PCs and elevating your NPCs to godhood were the ultimate goals of DMing, especially if you had a story to tell?

Snark aside, it is nice to know that some people actually read the 1E DMG instead of just spouting off about "killer DMs" and such. I am equally pleased, byt the way, that someone pointed out very similar statements in the 3E DMG.

Now, if we can get this stuff on the first page of both the PHB and the DMG for 4th, it might help make it worth playing.

 

[mcrow]

despite all of what has been said here, I still say that the bottomline is that the GM has the right to change any rule or judge them any way he/she wants. If you don't like it, as a player, find a new GM. If all the people involved in the game are friends there can't really be all that many rules problems. Most GMs i've know are willing to work with players if they have an issue with any given ruling as long as it takes place outside the gaming session so that it doesn't bog down the game.

In the end, if after consulting with GM (out side of the game) you can't come to an acceptable agreement then you should go looking for a new group. No amount of rules will solve this issue.

My issue with the current edition of D&D is it has to many rules for things that were just handled on the fly by the GM. When things were handled on the fly the game moved faster and smoother. Now, we have to slow down make a roll (if needed), consult the rules because there are so many of them it take quite a while to know them all.