Something, I think, Every GM/DM Should Read

[Beginning of the End]

THIS IS A TREATISE that every GM should READ!

It's a long-winded defense of using GM fiat as your resolution mechanic wrapped up with a pretty bow on top. It then attempts to slyly claim that detailed descriptions, player-initiated action, and GM rulings all depend on using GM fiat as your resolution mechanic... which is patently and obviously untrue.

Furthermore, its general thesis that "modern games include mechanics for resolving stuff that old school games didn't" is severely selective in its sampling of reality. As a simple example, OD&D included explicit resolution mechanics for monster morale; 4E doesn't.

In the end, sure. That's correct. But you've got to make a conscious decision if you're not just going to roll dice and look at the numbers--especially if there's a stat on the charcter's sheet that says the character is very good at a task.

"I'm checking for secret doors! I rolled an X. Did I find it.?"

That's the point being made.

But in all editions of D&D -- dating back to OD&D in 1974 -- secret doors have been detected by rolling a die and looking at the result.

HERE, THE PLAYER HAS BASICALLY CALLED FOR A SPOT CHECK. THE GM ROLLS THE SPOT BEHIND HIS SCREEN AND GIVES THE PLAYER NO IDEA OF THE RESULT--AS THE RESULT WILL BE ROLEPLAYED WHEN ANSWERING THE PLAYER'S QUESTIONS.

That's how 3E recommends handling Spot checks and a passive Spot check with no roll at all is the default in 4E, IIRC.

Your examples are actually making my point for me: There is no division between editions here. The Primer is fetishizing OD&D's lack of certain resolution mechanics and holding up the lack of resolution mechanics as this marvelous and wonderful thing... while ignoring all the resolution mechanics OD&D does possess.

In short: I would recommend that no one read the linked treatise. It's a poor premise misleadingly presented. Whatever good advice it contains can be found in more productive forms in many different places.

 

[Water Bob]

But in all editions of D&D -- dating back to OD&D in 1974 -- secret doors have been detected by rolling a die and looking at the result.

At what point did you take this thread to be anti-die roll?

I don't think you're getting the point at all.

In short: I would recommend that no one read the linked treatise. It's a poor premise misleadingly presented. Whatever good advice it contains can be found in more productive forms in many different places.

That confirms it. You really don't get it.

But, that's OK. You don't have to. Nobody's trying to force you to get it. It's there if you want to embrace it. If not, nobody's mad at you, and nobody's telling you that you can't have fun doing it some other way.

 

[pawsplay]

In short: I would recommend that no one read the linked treatise. It's a poor premise misleadingly presented. Whatever good advice it contains can be found in more productive forms in many different places.

I recommend everyone read it. It's a useful window into the mind of the self-serving GM. It must be admitted that, yes, the philosophy presented on resolution in general is largely irrelevant to the thrust of the essay.

 

[Dannager]

That confirms it. You really don't get it.

I think it's probably fair to say that he understood what he read. That was largely my takeaway from it as well. It would be just as easy to turn it around on you, and say, "You still think that treatise is valid? Wow, you really don't get it."

In the future, when you tell someone who disagrees with you that they don't get it, you should make an effort to explain your point in a way that can be more easily understood. If you don't, it just lends the appearance that you aren't familiar enough with your own argument to break it down for someone who doesn't understand it.

 

[Water Bob]

In the future, when you tell someone who disagrees with you that they don't get it, you should make an effort to explain your point in a way that can be more easily understood. If you don't, it just lends the appearance that you aren't familiar enough with your own argument to break it down for someone who doesn't understand it.

There are four pages in this thread where I've commented on that document several times.

You're asking me to repeat myself again?

 

[Dannager]

There are four pages in this thread where I've commented on that document several times.

You're asking me to repeat myself again?

No, I'm telling you that when you say "Psh, you just don't get it," that isn't at all productive on its own. If you're not going to follow that up with an earnest effort to explain your position, you're probably better off not saying it in the first place.

 

[Mercurius]

I haven't read the entire thread, so forgive me if I repeat what others have already said. I think the whole Old/New School thing has less to do with the game or edition or rules than it does with both when one started playing, and what the basic assumptions were in those formative games and years, but also the way a group relates to the system, whether as strict rules or as flexible guidelines. I started in the early 80s and it may not have been until 3E that I played fully by the "RAW." Even then, DM's discretion always trumped rulebooks (and still does).

That said, I think the New School approach has added something in that it better allows players to advocate for themselves (through the rules). Now of course this can and does get obnoxious, so as long as it is understood that the DM is the final arbiter, not the rule books, it works out OK.

So I suppose I'm a 70/30 Old/New school style gamer.

One side note. Despite my feeling that this is more a matter of game style than rules system, I do think that the 4E rules--because of the vast array of power options--subtly discourages free-form actions by players. I've tried to introduce the option for players to take improvisational actions with variable bonuses and damage, sort of like "stunt powers," but they rarely take up on it. I'm thinking of changing this to a free encounter power that players can use.

 

[Thasmodious]

If you have to say that the GM has power because it says so on pg. blah blah of the rulebook, then you are missing the point of this thread.

If I had to sum down the point of this thread into as few words as possible, I'd do it in just one sentence: The GM IS THE RULE BOOK.

That's the point of this thread.

Get that. Get the thread.

That's not what the poster or pg. 42 is saying at all. It has been pointed to, both in the primer and in this thread that the earlier editions empowered the GM by stating things along the lines of Rule Zero, the DM had the final call, the rules are guidelines, etc.

In 4e, all "page 42" is, is a look at the core math of the system, so that when the DM makes the many judgment calls that come up in a game, he has a way to easily and consistently handle the mechanical side of that judgment call.

For example, your scenario of the PC dodging to make two opponents possibly hit each other. I'd call for an an athletics check against an appropriate DC from the chart on page 42, and if successful have the two foes roll basic attacks against each other or use the damage expressions from the same chart.

The point is that the chart and advice on page 42 is there to aid the DM in doing exactly what you are talking about, while keeping it balanced and making the numbers make sense based on the core mechanics of the game. Yes, you can do it without such a chart, but it's there to encourage the DM to allow for creative play on the part of the players by making the mechanical side of such rulings a piece of cake.

And, as an aside, it comes off as fairly condescending to dismiss others as "just not getting it".

 

[Water Bob]

That said, I think the New School approach has added something in that it better allows players to advocate for themselves (through the rules). Now of course this can and does get obnoxious, so as long as it is understood that the DM is the final arbiter, not the rule books, it works out OK.

The whole "Old School vs. New School" thing really muddies up the point I was making with this thread. People see those words in the article and naturally assume this is a thread about one edition being "better" than the other.

This is what I mean when I say someone "just doesn't get it" (to answer the the last couple of challenges on this).



The point of this thread is quite simple:

I'm saying that I think the game is 10 times more interesting when action is focussed on what the players DO as opposed to what they ROLL.

DM: You turn the corner and see a long corridor before you. It's dark. No light. You can't see beyond your torchlight. What do you want to do?

Player: Hmmm....I'm suspicious. I want to check for traps.

DM: OK, roll it.

Player: I got a 17 with all my bonuses.

DM: You see a hair thin, almost invisible line, about ankle height, stretching acorss the corridor five feet past the corner you're at.

Player: Oh yeah? I'll disable it. (Rolls dice.) I rolled a 22 on my Disable Device skill.

DM: You snip the line with your dagger. The hair-thin string snaps to the sides. What do you want to do now?



See...whether that's Old School or New school gaming, it's FREAKIN' BORING!

This thread isn't about what rules set you play. If you "get it", then you know its about getting back to how the game was usually played back in the old days when players didn't know what to roll to disable traps. They had to wait for the DM to describe the situation to them and try different things.

One of the points of the article--the one that I'm keying in on--is that new editions of D&D and a lot of other games are rules heavy with a rule for everything. When the player is forced to wait and listed to the DM, trying to figure out what he needs to do, the game is so much more enjoyable.



Here's the POINT of this thread, in a nutshell...

Let's say that there was no Disable Device skill in d20 3.5. And, let's take the scenario that I made up as I wrote it above: You've just turned a corner and the DM has told you that you see a hair-fine filament stretched across the corridor. He asks you what are you going to.

Well, what are you going to do?

You can't just say, "I'm going to roll on my Disable Device skill," because, remember, we took it out of the game. It doesn't exist.

So...you're standing there...looking at that then, almost invisible line stretched across the corridor...what are you going to do?

You've got to tell the DM something. Study it. Get more information. Try to cut it with your dagger. Step over it.

You've got to say something.

And you don't know the outcome. If you step over, will it not release the trap? Do you have to break the filament? If you do cut the filament, will the trap release? And, what kind of trap is it? Does something fall from the ceiling? What can you see when you look "up"? Are there fine holes in the walls where poison darts shoot out at you? Will a big, giant, Indianna Jones style ball of rock come tumbling towards you from the other end of the corridor? Will a trap in floor collapse, dropping you on a bed of spikes or into the nest of some eddercaps?

ALL OF THAT IS MOUNTAINS MORE INTERESTING THAN...."Um....I rolled a 22 on my Disable Device. Can I keep walking now?"

That's the point.

 

[Beginning of the End]

At what point did you take this thread to be anti-die roll?

Man. You make a good point. Where on earth could I have gotten the impression that you were advocating not having mechanics for certain actions?

One of the points of the article--the one that I'm keying in on--is that new editions of D&D and a lot of other games are rules heavy with a rule for everything. (...) If you "get it", then you know its about getting back to how the game was usually played back in the old days when players didn't know what to roll to disable traps.

You can't just say, "I'm going to roll on my Disable Device skill," because, remember, we took it out of the game. It doesn't exist.

Oh. Right. It was the part where you said exactly that. Repeatedly. And in many different ways. And then continued to say it even after you had just gotten done implying you had never said it.