Per-Encounter/Per-Day Design and Gameplay Restrictions

[Raven Crowking]

That is saying, with other words, that the DM is responsible for what the players encounter.

No. That is saying that the DM is responsible for making things possible, even though the players are responsible for what the players encounter.


RC

 

[gizmo33]

DMs are de facto responsible, though, because the DM is the one who answers this question:
"I kick in the door! Are there any orcs?"

It's the player that decides which door to kick in and how to use information to get them to the door in the first place. This issue is missing some important context - I don't think kicking in random doors is a part of many people's play styles.

A player that complains about not being able to use his powers in a given dungeon is missing the point. If the player figured out why the heck his PC was adventuring in the first place then the rest of it would fall into place. Wandering around without motivation and expecting the DM to cater to his interests is not good playing IMO.

Also, if you undertake a mission that is important to your character, then if the dungeon takes advatange of some weaknesses (like undead vs. rogue) then it's still worth prevailing. Keeping your eye on the prize and not being filled with too much "oh woe is me" about not having all of your powers available is mitigated by the fact that what you're doing has some meaning to the character ("bard" or not).

So the bottom line is: having character motivation will increase the likelihood that your important powers will be usable, and if they're not usable in a particular scenario, it will enable you to look past the rather superficial goal of wowing your fellow players and focus on important character-related issues.

 

[Simia Saturnalia]

No. That is saying that the DM is responsible for making things possible, even though the players are responsible for what the players encounter.

Close, but no cohiba.

Without narration rights, those players don't decide anything. They can hunt orcs all they want, but until the DM puts some orcs in front of them they're just hunting. It's written from a point of view assuming an accommodating DM, so I can see where you'd be confused, but it's actually really clear.

 

[Nifft]

Work as in "every character should be equally effective in every encounter, regardless of the particulars of either the character or the encounter"?

Wait, how did we get from "it sucks to be poor in combat for 9 sessions = 36 fights" to "must be equal in every fight"?

Confused, -- N

 

[howandwhy99]

Which, and I hate to bring this news to you, is not nearly as common a play style as you appear to believe.

If the DM takes all responsibility away from his players, why have any limited resources? Just give the players what they will need for everything you have predestined for them when they need it. P.E. powers are hardly necessary. Make everything "at will", by which I mean the DM's will, not the players', and then we won't have all these worries about resources running out.

See the bolded line?

That is saying, with other words, that the DM is responsible for what the players encounter.

He's responsible for including things in a world they want. If a player said they were king of kamahi mahi, I'd make sure that kingdom existed. Is that me taking responsibility from the players? No, it's providing a world for them to be responsible for their own fun within.

EDIT:

Without narration rights, those players don't decide anything. They can hunt orcs all they want, but until the DM puts some orcs in front of them they're just hunting. It's written from a point of view assuming an accommodating DM, so I can see where you'd be confused, but it's actually really clear.

To put it in forge terms, narration rights are assessed at character creation, not during play. The GM delivers the world asked for, the players play within it.

In a game were encounters are predetermined, then that is the size of the world the players can make choices in.

 

[wgreen]

He's responsible for including things in a world they want. If a player said they were king of kamahi mahi, I'd make sure that kingdom existed. Is that me taking responsibility from the players? No, it's providing a world for them to be responsible for their own fun within.

IME, the DM is more likely to say, "Sorry, there is no Kamahi Mahi in my very special, sacred home-brewed campaign setting that I've used ever since I was in high school, and you're certainly no king. Come up with a different character."

The kind of DMing you describe in your posts is wonderful, difficult, and rare, I think.

-Will

 

[howandwhy99]

IME, the DM is more likely to say, "Sorry, there is no Kamahi Mahi in my very special, sacred home-brewed campaign setting that I've used ever since I was in high school, and you're certainly no king. Come up with a different character."

The kind of DMing you describe in your posts is wonderful, difficult, and rare, I think.

-Will

It's not really that difficult, but it sort of presupposes that the DM hasn't created or memorized an entire world. Points of Light world creation works easily enough and that's in 4e.

A DM that limits character concepts is more likely playing a non-homebrew game IME. The rules can limit character concepts too, but a good DM won't let those stop the players design choices either.

 

[Celebrim]

Ahah. So, if a newbie player and his DM come to the game, create a rogue and run him through a dungeon filled with the walking dead, and decide that this situation sucks, you'll be willing to extend an "I'm sorry for you."

Yes. I would.

That'd be nice, but it probably doesn't help the fact that the newbie player has sad "Sod this, I'll go do something where I can have some fun."

Maybe we should consider that a one dimensional dungeon of walking dead which is forced onto the player in the first adventure, might not be the best dungeon mastering. Also, I've never known a first time adventurer to recognize that his character sucks. First time players almost never understand how effective or ineffective that they are unless they die. Then again, maybe I've just ever thrust a first time gamer into that situation.

Anecdotal evidence: Brand new player in a game run by an otherwise good DM. The DM gave him a choice of pregenerated characters to play; the player selected a rogue, which proceeded to be genuinely worthless throughout the one session the guy showed up for. He did not show up again.

I can't tell if that means anything or not. Did you start the newbie at a high level of play?

 

[gizmo33]

Without narration rights, those players don't decide anything.

Players "don't decide anything" ?! Maybe we're not playing the same game. Or, this is an extreme overstatement. It's possible that the lack of understanding of what effect a player's choice has on the flow of the game is causing the problem in the first place. If the player is choosing "Zeus, King of the Gods" as his character concept and not getting the DMs cooperation, I suppose it would be consistent with his reasoning ability to conclude that there is a problem with the DM.

 

[Nifft]

Eh, I think the conversation has drifted into technical semantic crap.

One Side: "When I DM, the players decide stuff. Because, you know, I let them."

Other Side: "But YOU LET them! That means really you decide stuff!"

One Side: "Right, but I decide to let THEM decide..."

Other Side: "Right, but YOU decide to LET them decide..."

Blah blah, implicit gaming contract, mutual consent, blah blah. In a good game the players have some feeling of control and also some feeling of uncertainty, and the DM gives them some things they expect and some surprises.

- - -

Anyway, back on track. IMHO it's far too easy to build a one-trick PC. This is terrible because when your trick works, you win, and when it doesn't, you lose. Diplomacy builds are particularly terrible in this regard, because they win by talking and not killing stuff.

This is what silo'd abilities are intended to solve, I think.

Cheers, -- N