Something, I think, Every GM/DM Should Read

[pemerton]

Can you quote who made this claim? I missed it somehow in this thread.

Well, here are some quotes from the OP which advocate in favour of freeform roleplaying either substituting for, or trumping, action resolution via dice rolling:

with all the rules bloat and such (and I like all versions of D&D that I've played), at least in some games, the creative give-n-take might be sucked out of a game.

It becomes an excercise, sometimes, in numbers. I roll this. What's your roll? OK, this happens. Then I do this. If you do, you need to roll that. OK, I rolled. Do I make it.

That sort of thing.

<snip>

the fading of the free-form play in favor of a-rule-for-everything play has, in some cases, reduced the power of the DM to an arbiter of the rules instead of being The Rulebook, as he was in the more abstract days.

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.

<snip>

A player's play should always trump a dice roll.

<snip>

In my game, role play is king, regardless of stats on a page. I try to use the throws to guide me in how I roleplay NPCs. If the player makes a high CHA check, I'll make the NPC friendly. If the check is low, I'll make the NPC not so friendly.

But, no matter the outcome of the throw, I'm not going to allow a high CHA score and a good roll trump a player's roleplaying.

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.

<snip>

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.

<snip>

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.

Now, admittedly, there's also this from the OP:

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

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

I do think the skills and Feats and all the numbers on the 3.5 character sheet lends itself to what is described in the document as "modern gaming".

What I'm saying is, if you find yourself in that rut, there's no reason why you can't run a game using what the document refers to as "old school play" but still use modern day mechanics.

<snip>

"But...!!! What about my Spot skill!" The player says, "Did I put those skill points in it for nothing?"

No, Mr. Player, your character will still benefit, mechanically, from your high Spot rating, and you'll still be able to use it to detect traps and such. Except, now, the DM rolls your Spot secretly behind his screen and uses the result to guide how he describes the scene and answers your questions as you roleplay it out, Olde School Style.

<snip>

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.

With a failing result, the DM will not offer any description the player does not ask for. He'll answer the player's questions, but the player has to be specific, and the DM will make discovering the trap as reasonably hard as he can.

With a successful result, the DM will be more willing to provide broad information based on the player's questions

As far as I understand it, this is saying that the GM makes dice rolls, and that s/he then modifies his/her freeform roleplaying to reflect the outcome of those dice rolls.

Personally, I don't find this an especially attractive approach to play. From the players' point of view, all action resolution is dependent upon them engaging effectively with the GM's descriptions of things, and providing adequate descriptions themselves. From the players' points of views, there is no dice rolling either of a simulationist variety (the players never get to roll dice to establish the unfolding causal logic of the gameworld) or a narrativist variety (the players never get to roll dice to grant themselves the privilege of determining the content of the fiction). And on this approach, all a player achieves via character building is to set some parameters that the GM is obliged to respect in engaging in free-form narration (eg the GM has to have some regard to a PC's spot bonus, because this will effect the outcome of spot rolls that in turn set the parameters of the GM's narration).

From the players' point of view, this approach to action resolution is the abandoning of dice rolls in favour of free-form roleplaying (exactly as the OP said, as I've quoted at the top of this post).

 

[Hussar]

No, those are all expressions of the same point.

The DM is the rulebook.

And because the DM is the rulebook, players have to trust him.

/snip

"Have" to trust him? Really? When I sit down at your table, I should automatically, sight unseen, trust you just because you're sitting behind the DM's screen?

Funny how no one, not one person, ever says, "Trust your players" when this sort of discussion comes up. No one says, "Hey, your players are there to have fun. Sit back, let the players have their say and go with what they decide from time to time. They are every bit as invested in making sure the game is a success as you are, so, you have to trust them."

No, it's "Players, THOU SHALT trust THY DM. His WORD is LAW" and any player who disagrees is branded as whiney, unproductive and disruptive.

Maybe it's because RPG books are always written by game masters and not players.

 

[Raven Crowking]

"Have" to trust him? Really? When I sit down at your table, I should automatically, sight unseen, trust you just because you're sitting behind the DM's screen?

Funny how no one, not one person, ever says, "Trust your players" when this sort of discussion comes up. No one says, "Hey, your players are there to have fun. Sit back, let the players have their say and go with what they decide from time to time. They are every bit as invested in making sure the game is a success as you are, so, you have to trust them."

No, it's "Players, THOU SHALT trust THY DM. His WORD is LAW" and any player who disagrees is branded as whiney, unproductive and disruptive.

Maybe it's because RPG books are always written by game masters and not players.

It's because of the job each does at the table, and the implications that the job holds for how much fun the game is going to be.

Not every GM is trustworthy, but (IMHO) no game is worth playing where the GM is not trusted. It's a simple IF/THEN statement. IF you don't trust the GM, THEN the game will suck. IF you do trust the GM, THEN the game may still suck, but the odds are a hell of a lot better that they will not than if you don't trust the GM.

Put another way: Given the benefit of the doubt, a mediocre GM can do a reasonable job. Not given the benefit of the doubt, a great GM can seem like a total wanker.

(This leads to a related observation: If someone claims that many of their GMs have been total wankers, then it might relate to how much trust that player is willing to extend, rather than the relative GMing skills involved.)

YMMV.



RC

 

[Water Bob]

"Have" to trust him? Really? When I sit down at your table, I should automatically, sight unseen, trust you just because you're sitting behind the DM's screen?

If you're going to play in my game, then you have to agree to a couple of rules. If you don't agree, then you're not invited to play with me and the other players who have agreed.

The first rule is: Everybody shows up to play the game or nobody plays*. Nobody can play your character the way you do. It's a sacrifice to get to a game. We all do it because we enjoy playing. I don't want players not showing up for silly reasons, so, from the beginning, everyone commits to being at each game session. If you can't make that commitment, then, no offence, please don't play in our game.

*We will play on occasions when a player's character is not with the main group. If so-and-so stays in town, that's fine. We'll play with less people. If John has his character go off on his own, I might play a session with just me and him. But, if your character is involved, everybody plays or nobody plays.


The second rule is: You accept me as the DM. I am The Rulebook. I will endeavor to be fair, but people are people. They have differnent opinions. If my call is different from what you would do as DM, then politely voice your comment. If it makes sense, we'll go with what you say. If I don't agree, then there is no disagreement. There is no argument. If you want to play in this game, then you have to accept my judgement as final and move on.

If you can't do that, then, yes, please find another game.



I'm a stickler for those two rules. People who regularly play in my campaigns know them well. And, most have realized that by enforcing these two rules, my games run very smoothly, with little to zero arguments. If someone does get a bit heated (and it will happen, because players get real attached to their characters--and that isn't a bad thing), usually I won't have to say anything. Another player will usually step in ans say, "C'mon man. You know the rule. Let's keep going."

And, boom, we're done and moving along.

 

[Mark CMG]

As far as I understand it, this is saying that the GM makes dice rolls, and that s/he then modifies his/her freeform roleplaying to reflect the outcome of those dice rolls.

That's how RPing works when a GM is involved.

From the players' point of view, this approach to action resolution is the abandoning of dice rolls in favour of free-form roleplaying (exactly as the OP said, as I've quoted at the top of this post).

Nope. You misstep when you hyperbolically include the word "abandoning" in your attempt to paint the discussion in that manner. The quotes don't support advocacy for such an extreme as you argue against.

 

[Water Bob]

It is only human nature for people to desire betterment of their position. In this game it results in player characters seeking ever more wealth, magic, power, influence, and control. As with most things in life, the striving after is usually better than the getting. To maintain interest and excitement, there should always be some new goal, some meaningful purpose. It must also be kept in mind that what is unearned is usually unappreciated. What is gotten cheaply is often held in contempt. It is a great responsibility to Dungeon Master a campaign.​

- E. Gary Gygax, Advanced Dungeons & Dragons Dungeon Master's Guide, pg. 93

Let's not forget the words of the creator.

 

[pemerton]

That's how RPing works when a GM is involved.

That depends a bit on the table, I think, and also the system.

For example, when the player of the fighter at my table uses Come and Get It, no dice are involved and the player gets to tell me (and the other players) where the relevant NPCs/monsters end up.

When I GM Rolemaster, and a player makes a critical roll, it is the crit table that determines the resultant injury.

And at my table, if a player rolls a Perception check and equals or exceeds the DC, I say what is found (trap, secret compartment, etc). I don't just increase the detail of my description of the scene and expect the player to infer, from that, what it is that has been found. And I have zero interest in hearing about tapping with 10' poles, faffing around pouring water to find hairline cracks, etc, etc.

I don't think this is the same sort of play as "the GM is the rulebook" that the OP is advocating. Nor is it the same as the suggestion that, rather than the players rolling dice, the GM roll dice in secret behind a screen and use that to influence descriptions from which the players must infer what is really going on.

 

[pemerton]

Let's not forget the words of the creator.

I've got a pretty good working knowledge of Gygax's AD&D rulebooks. And from them, from accounts in early Dragon magazines, and from other places as well (like the account of his game GMing the ENworld admins) I think I've got at least some idea of the way that he played and GMed the game. It doesn't particularly coincide with my own preferences.

For example:

It is only human nature for people to desire betterment of their position. In this game it results in player characters seeking ever more wealth, magic, power, influence, and control. As with most things in life, the striving after is usually better than the getting.

<snip>

what is unearned is usually unappreciated. What is gotten cheaply is often held in contempt.

This might be good advice for a certain sort of game that is focused on challenging the players via their PCs. (For example, the sort of game described by Gygax in the concluding few pages of his PHB.) There are a variety of other playstyles, though, for which it is not especially appropriate. In a game where the main focus of play, for example, is placing the PCs in open-ended but immediately pressing situations designed to generate thematically engaging resolutions, the notion of "earning" outcomes for the PCs doesn't have much work to do.

 

[Mark CMG]

That depends a bit on the table, I think, and also the system.

For example, when the player of the fighter at my table uses Come and Get It, no dice are involved and the player gets to tell me (and the other players) where the relevant NPCs/monsters end up.

When I GM Rolemaster, and a player makes a critical roll, it is the crit table that determines the resultant injury.

The tengent of the discussion was in regard to Diplomacy, specifically. Your next example is at least akin to that.

And at my table, if a player rolls a Perception check and equals or exceeds the DC, I say what is found (trap, secret compartment, etc).

Modifying what or how something is discovered based on circumstances is the province of the GM, which speaks to why DCs are not static and why this particular type of roll is better in the hands of the GM. Why should a player be aware of certain difficulties in finding something that he or she doesn't even know might be there (or might not)? This is also a great example for why the GM should be rolling in a situation where failure to find something because of a poor roll should be not unlike failure to find something if successful and there is actually nothing to find.

 

[pemerton]

Well, generally it is my players who initiate Perception checks (otherwise I just use the passive scores) and in any event I don't worry about a little bit of metagaming by my players.