On taking power away from the DM

[Celebrim]

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

Since the original poster asked to explain how and why DM's feel they've lost power, and seems unsure whether they have, I was trying to explain that your explanation to the original posters question - however insightful - did not explain how this DM felt as if the balance of power had shifted.

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.

This is a repeat of your argument from the earlier post, and I agree with it. However, its not even the best example of how the skill system can interfere with a DM's design of an adventure, nor do I agree that the introduction of codified skill systems and uniform resolution rules (say for environmental effects or avoiding traps) are in any fashion the principle ways that a DM has lost power - much less that these are examples of the power shift between DM's and players. If you think that you are, then I can see why you strongly disagree with the idea that the player has gained power.

I think that bigger issues are the seemingly spanning nature of the rules set gives the illusion of covering all possible cases, so that the PC's have the expectation (usually satisfied) that everything can be resolved through a mechanic that they are familiar with. So for example, holes in the rule set are harder to plug without an argument. As an example, the 'spot/listen' rules are really only viable over a range of about 100'. The sheer quality of the rules creates the expectation that the DM doesn't fudge them, which can result in an argument when the DM realizes that sniping at a range of 400'+ is going to be problimatic both as a PC means of evading challenges, or turned against them, as a tactic that they cannot under the RAW counter either. Formerly, this argument would have been very unlikely. The player wouldn't really have had the rules to throw back in the DM's face, because other than vague rules for thieves hiding in shadows, how anyone else hid was not really covered.

Likewise, there are examples of designs that just don't work well under the new system. For example, in the 3.5 translation of Tomb of Horrors, many encounters are totally changed. For example, the false entrance trap in in 1st edition depended on _player decisiveness_, not _character decisiveness_ (ei a reflex save), which very much changes how the encounter plays. It's difficult to build a problem like that when players have an expectation from the rules that play decisiveness is not expected. An even better example from the same module is the secret doors puzzle, where the players must figure out how each secret door works. Even the module text admits this sort of puzzle detail isn't accounted for in an abstract search system, and I expect that players reared on 3rd edition would have to be expressly told what was expected of them by the puzzle because they have an expectation from the rules that searching is abstracted.

I've beat this example to death, but abstract searching in edge cases creates all sorts of headaches for the DM. Suppose you search a section of wall. The expectation of the player is that he doesn't have to tell the DM that he wants to look behind the painting, and he will feel cheated if he fails to find what is behind the painting because he didn't say 'I'm looking behind the painting'. This is all well and good if the results of looking behind the painting is entirely positive (ei 'You find a niche filled with jewels'). But if the results of interacting with the painting are negative (ei 'You see a symbol of death'), then the player will naturally feel cheated if he is assumed to have looked behind the painting because he didn't explicitly say he did. So, in an attempt to be fair, how you adjudicate this situation tells the player what is behind the painting, or else you simply don't hide things 'behind paintings'. But the situation is actually worse than that. Because, what if the player with no search ranks and an 8 INT says, "I look behind the painting." Now suddenly the player with a large investment in search is cheated because the player with INT in a dump stat offered up a very fair proposition (you don't have to be smart to look behind the painting) which totally invalidated his skill. Should I honor the fair proposition, or should I force the player to make a search check to see if his character actually looks behind the painting. No matter how I rule, my ruling will be percieved as disempowering the player, and this creates resentment. So again, the system strongly discourages the DM from designing things 'behind paintings', and this is a loss of DM freedom.

Whether those sorts of problems are good design or not (and I don't concede they aren't), the point stands that the DM has lost freedom and the PC's have been empowered by virtue of shortcutting previously expected obstacles. Effectively, the PC's can - using the rules - make demands on how a DM designs his game.

But skill examples (and I could go on and on) aren't even the best examples of how the system limits DM freedom. Far more limiting are problems like expected wealth levels, which determines not only how I can expect to design encounters, but entire campaigns. A concept like expected wealth level creates the perception in the players that treasure is a form of dole, which is to be handed out at regular intervals in predictable amounts as the player's due. Whether the rules actually say that or not, they create that perception and empowered feeling players are very likely to complain if they don't think that they are getting what they think the rules say (and what some here havel argued) they have coming to them.

So, no, I don't think you get it at all. I do think that the rules systems gives players the perception of authority, and with that perception of authority comes conflict which effectively limits DM's freedom to be creative.

 

[Psion]

Well you can explain all day long. (and I could go on and on) aren't even the best examples of how the system limits DM freedom. Far more limiting are problems like expected wealth levels, which determines not only how I can expect to design encounters, but entire campaigns. A concept like expected wealth level creates the perception in the players that treasure is a form of dole, which is to be handed out at regular intervals in predictable amounts as the player's due.

Wow. Either people got a lot more faith in the designers, got more weak willed as GMs, or both.

See, I see the DM as being superior to the designer in making game decisions, not inferior. Designers make mistakes, and more importantly, designers don't know my game and my players.

That doesn't mean that what you see in a rulebook isn't helpful or useful. It definitely can be. But it's encumbant upon the GM to recognize when it's not and have the will to deviate from it.

Use the rules. Don't let the rules use you.

 

[Lord Zardoz]

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.

Quasqueton

Here is a much more concise summary of the problem, with 2 perspectives.

Problem: Often, the players may come up with a solution to a problem that is not spelled out in the rules. When there are no explicit rules, it falls to the DM to decide if an something possible. That is the DM's power.

DM's often make ruleings based on plot convenince. Consider a cave guarded by a giant with a treasure inside. A Dwarf player decides that rather than fighting the Giant, they should dig a tunnel, and bypass the giant. With no rules for digging, the DM can simply say "No, it wont work. You will be spotted / killed in a cave in."

In 3rd edition, if that player had dumped a bunch of ranks into Profession, Miner and / or Knowledge, Engineering, and had some tools, he could tell the DM he wants to make a skill check to dig the tunnel. The DM then has to allow the player to make the check, and possibly bypass several difficult fights.

It is also worth noting that while digging a tunnel may take weeks in game time, it may only take about 5 minutes at the table. If the Dm had planned on running a 5 hour game with 4 of those hours taken up by encounters that are now avoided due to the tunnel, he is kind of screwed.

And now my own thoughts on this.

Players (in the sense of people who play D&D, not PC's) who complain about loss of DM power do not like it when extra rules diminish areas of the game where they are used to relying on Dm Fiat. The added complexity can slow down the game due to looking up unfamiliar rules. While arbitrary, Dm Fiat is about the fastest resolution to a given action. Dm's also like Dm Fiat because they can use it to keep the players from doing things that make previous preparation a waste of time.

Those who do not care for Dm Fiat like having rules in place for various situations. It will often allow players to do things that are plausible for their characters regardless of how badly it screws the Dm. It is also a measure of protection against Dm's who are inconsistent and generally unfair.

My own position leans away from Dm Fiat. Even though I am a Dm, I prefer to avoid any situation where I might be accused of being unfair. Being a higly tactical rat bastard DM rather than a 'story first' type, I tend to use the rules as written to create nasty situations.

The best long term solution is to make the game less reliant on Dm prep time. If preptime is kept to a minimum, then Dm's are less likely to use Dm Fiat to protect hours of Prep time and prevent players from doing entertaining, if inconvenient things.

END COMMUNICATION

 

[Celebrim]

Wow. Either people got a lot more faith in the designers, got more weak willed as GMs, or both.

They probably do. I've the impression that the designers garnered so much (largely well earned) respect, that the notion you'd need to house rule the game (except to give the players more powerful options) is seen as evidence of a deranged and perhaps dangerous mind.

See, I see the DM as being superior to the designer in making game decisions, not inferior. Designers make mistakes, and more importantly, designers don't know my game and my players.

I agree. But I've met IRL and encountered many times on these boards people who passionately disagree with that.

Use the rules. Don't let the rules use you.

Right. As a DM I see the rules as being there to help me do my job, and if they get in the way of that, then they get modified.

 

[Ridley's Cohort]

Corner cases around skills are not very good examples. There are many different ways to handle, say, the Search skill. Each has its advantages and disadvantages.

And I have certainly seen plenty of examples of even well-meaning DMs hanging themselves with that beloved Rope of Freedom.

Both having wealth guidelines and not having wealth guidelines are potential sources of friction. The key is for the DM to successfully communicate expectations.

IME taking the "Expectations! I don't need to set no stinking expectations!" attitude sometimes works and sometimes fails horribly. YMMV.

 

[Ridley's Cohort]

It is all very good to say that a DM can make very fast off the cuff rulings based on the situation and character background through the magic of DM Fiat. That works great in theory.

In practice, I see that even good DMs tend to get roll happy when faced with novel tactics and no rules to guide them. Each roll added pushes the answer closer and closer to N-O.

If a Monk wants to launch off the balcony to try and knock the escaping Evil Count below off his horse, I would tend to see 1e DMs saying things like: "Uh, well, you need to make a strength check and a dex check for your jump. Then a to hit roll to touch him. Then a strength check to try and hold on. And if that succeeds he will need to make a strength check."

You would think a PC with lots of 15s has pretty good stats. But if the DM says "Oh, I guess your PC ought to be able to do that. Do a strength and a dex check." What that really translates into is "I do not want to say no because your request is reasonable based on your PC background. But even though we agree your PC should be good at that kind of thing, you will fail >50% of the time. Just because. (Please stop asking for these off the cuff rulings.)"

3e DMs tend to say things more along the line of: "Well, I know your Jump and Tumble skills are skill high so I am not going to even ask you to roll. You take a little fall damage. Roll that touch attack, and then we shall see if you grapple succeeds."

Rules are a form of communication. A +20 Jump skill informs the DM and the Player "this PC can easily do anything within the realm of reason for a RL human, and then some".

 

[Geron Raveneye]

If a Monk wants to launch off the balcony to try and knock the escaping Evil Count below off his horse, I would tend to see 1e DMs saying things like: "Uh, well, you need to make a strength check and a dex check for your jump. Then a to hit roll to touch him. Then a strength check to try and hold on. And if that succeeds he will need to make a strength check."

Funny, I'd see a 1E DM (actually, most pre-3E edition DMs) say "Fine, you want to drag him from his horse? Make an attack roll, -2 penalty for trying to hit a moving target. Opposed Dex checks to see if you get him OFF the saddle, and if you want to make him land beneath you another opposed Dex check."

Maybe you and I had different kinds of DMs?

 

[Celebrim]

In practice, I see that even good DMs tend to get roll happy when faced with novel tactics and no rules to guide them. Each roll added pushes the answer closer and closer to N-O.

Sometimes that is a legitimate answer. If the DM is running a grittier campaign, then he's going to want to stack those rolls in sequence as a way of saying no without saying no, to discourage high risk manuevers that only really work in the movies.

If a Monk wants to launch off the balcony to try and knock the escaping Evil Count below off his horse, I would tend to see 1e DMs saying things like: "Uh, well, you need to make a strength check and a dex check for your jump. Then a to hit roll to touch him. Then a strength check to try and hold on. And if that succeeds he will need to make a strength check."

In 1e you either could jump far enough or you couldn't. So it would be more like figuring out how far you could jump, then making a to hit roll, then resolving the attack possibly with an opposed roll. What you describe is much more typical of highly detailed skill systems, which encourage a 'make a check for anything' mentality.

I would think a PC with lots of 15s has pretty good stats. But if the DM says "Oh, I guess your PC ought to be able to do that. Do a strength and a dex check." What that really translates into is "I do not want to say no because your request is reasonable based on your PC background. But even though we agree your PC should be good at that kind of thing, you will fail >50% of the time. Just because. (Please stop asking for these off the cuff rulings.)"

Really? Is that what it translates to? Or does it translate to, "Timing a jump at a trotting horse 15' from you and 10' below you so that you hit the Count without breaking your bones is hard to the point of being superheroic and you don't get to be a superhero at 1st level, because otherwise what are you going to have left to obtain at 8th level?"

3e DMs tend to say things more along the line of: "Well, I know your Jump and Tumble skills are skill high so I am not going to even ask you to roll. You take a little fall damage. Roll that touch attack, and then we shall see if you grapple succeeds."

In other words, you make a to hit roll and then resolve an attack (possibly resisted). Personally, I don't consider this to be a grapple. It's a bull rush that happens to be attempted as part of a movement containing a jump. The number of rolls involved depending on the circumstances could be very high, probably higher than it would have been had I tried to resolve it in 1st. (Does the count spot the Monk, or does the monk achieve surprise? If not surprised, what are the results of the Counts AoO? Does the monk make the jump? Is the monk's attack on target? Does the monk's strength check beat the count's ride skill? Does the monk tumble to the ground gracefully, or take damage? Does the count take damage from the fall? Is either participant now prone? Does the horse panic?)

I certainly don't agree that these are necessarily bad questions solely designed to say 'No', in disguise. That's a pretty negative attitude towards DMing in general. At the very least, they are designed to reward a player who invested in these skills by allowing him to do things that are hard and would be impossible for characters that didn't have such extraordinary skills. If these things are made easy for you, then they are also made easy for the NPC's. That isn't necessarily fair to the player either.

Rules are a form of communication. A +20 Jump skill informs the DM and the Player "this PC can easily do anything within the realm of reason for a RL human, and then some".

I've no problem with some sorts of player empowerment. Having a 'trip' mechanic tells the player, "This is something you can try to do. You could have always tried to do it, but I'm making it explicit to you." That's a great thing, because player's (and some DM's) tend to assume that if the rules don't say you can do it, then you can't. Unfortunately, when the rules have the illusion of covering everything, as the 3rd edition rules do, this perception is even more strongly enforced so that IME the explicit options in the 3rd edition game often limit the player's actions even more than situation in the 1st edition game where the player didn't even know the rules.

 

[Ridley's Cohort]

Maybe you and I had different kinds of DMs?

I would not be surprised.

Which is why generalizations that are useful to someone else are so difficult to make, including whether the DM has less "power" in 3e in any meaningful sense of the word, and whether this is a good thing or a bad thing or both.

I am very very far from the only one who has seen the "veto by many dice" effect. "Rules light" can be very heavy and ponderous in actual implementation.

 

[Quasqueton]

I had a DM (for one game session) who used the blind rolling method of decision making:

DM: Okay, roll d-percent.

Me: <rolls> 53.

DM: Okay. . . roll d6.

Me: <rolls> 2.

DM: . . . Okay. . . roll d20.

Me: <rolls> 14.

DM: . . . Okay. . . you succeed.

I think he was just stalling for time to think, because I didn't know, and never learned what all those rolls were for.

Quasqueton