Something, I think, Every GM/DM Should Read

[Ariosto]

That doesn't even make any sense.

Yes, it does, if (naturally) one understands it. The greater burden falls to me, but communication is a team effort -- so some effort in good faith on your part (taking on faith that there indeed is a sensible proposition I am trying to convey) is necessary.

So it is when someone thinks he can "trip" a snake in the secondary world. There is some mechanism in the world by which he thinks this possible. When we understand just what that process is, we can assess what factors are relevant to its likelihood.

RPG game rules historically have been the products and expressions of such analysis. Somebody considered factors shaping, e.g., a fight between Hero A and Monster B -- and then made up rules based on those considerations.

The considerations come first, as mother to the rules. Rules sets do not spontaneously generate themselves from vacuum.

 

[Ariosto]

The DM doesn't judge how well you describe swinging your sword at a troll to determine if you hit.

The DM -- in old D&D, if not in 4e -- not only can but should consider relevant situations. If you're trying to swing your sword at a troll that is simply out of reach, intangible, or otherwise reasonably immune to your ministrations, then it is proper and expected that the DM should rule that you miss.

In other situations, the DM may assess a bonus or penalty to reflect the greater or lesser likelihood of landing a telling blow or causing so many points of damage.

Trying to petrify what is already stone, to knock down something already as low as it can go, to blind the sightless, to "turn undead" that are not really that, or any other such thing, may likewise be ruled simply futile.

At no point has the basic mechanical model been different, much less "just the opposite".

I disagree. It has indeed been from the start in 1970-71, and across the vast majority of RPGs since, a matter of first considering just what is being proposed.

That's no accident, either. Your problem, if you are really having it, is quite obviously either (a) misunderstanding as to what is being attempted or (b) disagreement over what is feasible in the imagined situation. If not for that, pray tell, on what would you base disagreement over the proposed rule?

You have got the process backwards, and will clear it up only by going back and completing the real Step One.

If you are continually arguing with the DM, then you are in the wrong place. Go start your own game, do the work of a DM, and show 'em "how it's done". If you get more players, then you can brag.

 

[Thasmodious]

The DM -- in old D&D, if not in 4e -- not only can but should consider relevant situations. If you're trying to swing your sword at a troll that is simply out of reach, intangible, or otherwise reasonably immune to your ministrations, then it is proper and expected that the DM should rule that you miss.

Certainly. Or it has some type of immunity or magical protection or any of dozens of other possibilities why it's damage would legitimately be reduced within the context of the game. What isn't legitimate is the DM arbitrarily, and after the fact, negating players actions while ignoring their input. This is what has been in dispute throughout these prone snake discussions.

It would be pretty awful of a DM to respond, in old D&D, as such:

PC: I take a swing at the troll
DM: The troll is 12 feet away, your swing misses.
PC: Dude, clearly I meant I enter melee range and thwack him.
DM: Nope, you said it.

The petty nature of such an exchange is exactly what I am objecting to.

In other situations, the DM may assess a bonus or penalty to reflect the greater or lesser likelihood of landing a telling blow or causing so many points of damage.

Of course, and that ability is part of the default social contract. Arbitrarily rewriting character abilities is not. "Nope, you can't trip this thing that is not immune to being tripped because I say so" is the same as saying "Nope, you can't polymorph this guy because he is my favorite villain." I didn't tolerate that kind of DM power trip in the 80s and I'm less inclined to do so now.

Trying to petrify what is already stone, to knock down something already as low as it can go, to blind the sightless, to "turn undead" that are not really that, or any other such thing, may likewise be ruled simply futile.

You can rules lawyer the definitions and the system, but the intent of most actions within the rules are pretty clear. Could you envision petrifying a stone golem? I can. Big difference between an articulated automaton made of stone and something being stone and immobile.

I disagree. It has indeed been from the start in 1970-71, and across the vast majority of RPGs since, a matter of first considering just what is being proposed.

the only reason you have this problem at all is because you insist on interactions that "arise from the mechanics" instead of just the opposite

No, that's game design. Considering how things interact and then making mechanics to represent that is called game design. Rolling hit dice after declaring the intention to hit is the designed mechanics framing the interaction with the world. A PCs basic interactions and the frame by which they understand how to interact with the world aren't made up on the fly, they are the mechanics of system.

If you are continually arguing with the DM, then you are in the wrong place. Go start your own game, do the work of a DM, and show 'em "how it's done". If you get more players, then you can brag.

EnWorld is the wrong place? I have my own game. I've DMed for over 30 years, and I show 'em how it's done every Friday night. You know what they say about assumptions.

 

[Hussar]

The DM and players are engaged in a a collaboratively imagined game world, but that doesn't mean that the players have equal power with the DM over the details.

Disallowing effects of powers in situations where they don't make sense

This underlined bit is the crux of the disagreement I think. Don't make sense to who?

does not dismiss the imagination and creativity of the other 3-5 brains around the table any more than applying the written word of the power's effects embraces their imagination and creativity. Depending on the approach taken, disallowing the effects of a power may be based on quite a bit more creativity than simply allowing the rules to play out as written. There's most definitely a middle ground in there, a mix of creative application of the rules and creative negation of them.

Possibly. And, you are of course right that there are a number of points in between. But, this sidesteps my question:

Why is it ok for the DM to be the sole arbiter of what is "believable"?

I'm sorry. I'm just trying to wrap my head around the fact that your player cried foul over a creature being in the wrong terrain instead of his character being incredibly curious about a wyvern being so far from home? I mean where's the sense of adventure and discovery. Is the minutia of the rules that much more important than the story being told?

To be honest, I was rather taken aback too which is why this incident sticks out in my memory. But, the point still remains, I put something where it shouldn't be. I put a tiger in Africa. It was something very jarring to that player's sense of disbelief, just like having a tiger leap out of the bushes in Africa would be. Or polar bears and penguins in the same place.

So, if the DM can veto something based solely on his interpretation of what is believable, why can't the player do the same thing? After all, the claim is that even if the player can justify his action, the DM can still veto the action based on his believability filter. How is it different that the DM can justify his choices even though it ruins the player's believability?

In other words, why is it okay that the DM simply adds in details to explain why there is a tiger in Africa and the players should simply accept this, but, a player who does the EXACT same thing is a crybaby (to use Ultramark's term)?

 

[TheUltramark]

In other words, why is it okay that the DM simply adds in details to explain why there is a tiger in Africa and the players should simply accept this, but, a player who does the EXACT same thing is a crybaby (to use Ultramark's term)?

did we switch scenarios? if the player uses a power and the dm decides it doesnt work, then the player should either try something else, or figure out why it didnt work by a means that doesn't involve quoting a rule book he shouldn't have access to, or throwing his pencil or slamming a door. Certainly, the player should not be able to add details after an unfavorable ruling...are you suggesting that the players keep track of the monster's hit points next?

In your game with the manticore and the crybaby, what did you do? give in to the player or instead, come up with some mysterious plot twist on the snap that "explained" why this "flock???" of manticore was in this locale ?????? and in so doing give out just a small snipit of said twist and see if Mr.Manticore could find the next clue and put the puzzle together?

 

[Hussar]

Let's reverse it TheUltramark? When the player tried to use his ability to knock the snake prone, did the DM try something else or figure out why it worked by a means that doesn't involve quoting a rule book? If a player should not be able to add details after an unfavorable ruling, why should a DM be able to?

Why is the player a crybaby for having his sense of believablility violated, but the DM gets a free pass? Why can the DM "come up with some mysterious plot twist on the snap" but the player must absolutely conform to the DM's rulings?

And the better question in my mind is, why the repeated characterization of the player as a "crybaby"? How does it help the game to characterize one player as being immature while another player who does the exact same thing, is running the game properly?

 

[TheUltramark]

Let's reverse it TheUltramark? When the player tried to use his ability to knock the snake prone, did the DM try something else or figure out why it worked by a means that doesn't involve quoting a rule book? If a player should not be able to add details after an unfavorable ruling, why should a DM be able to?

Why is the player a crybaby for having his sense of believablility violated, but the DM gets a free pass? Why can the DM "come up with some mysterious plot twist on the snap" but the player must absolutely conform to the DM's rulings?

And the better question in my mind is, why the repeated characterization of the player as a "crybaby"? How does it help the game to characterize one player as being immature while another player who does the exact same thing, is running the game properly?

why can the dm come up with plot twists on the snap ????????????????
uh......'cause he is the dm !

 

[Hussar]

Then why can't the players do the same thing? You keep dancing around the question, but never really come to the point.

No one, at least not me, is saying you cannot come up with justifications for why something happened (or failed to happen) after the fact. Of course you can. My question is why is this the sole domain of the DM?

The DM says a snake cannot be knocked prone. The player disagrees and gives a plausible explanation for how it could be knocked prone. (note, this could be applied to any situation, not just this specific one) But, apparently, the player is not permitted to do this and is a crybaby for doing so.

Yet, when the shoe is on the other foot, and the DM makes a claim that the player disagrees with, the DM makes a plausible explanation and the player must accept it, or the player again becomes a crybaby.

Why is the DM's sensibilities the only ones that matter?

 

[Styxs]

Some good ideas in the article but I don't think everything it said should be brought into play.

 

[Hussar]

Stepping away from D&D for a second. One of my favourite games that I haven't gotten to play yet (sigh) is 3:16 Carnage Beyond the Stars. In 3:16, you play Colonial Marines out to make the universe safe for Humanity by blowing the crap out of every alien you meet. It's not a terribly serious game. There's more to it than that, but, that's the basic gist.

One thing I love in the system is each PC has a number of Strengths and Weaknesses. These are left blank at the start of the game and the character has a limited number of each. More can be gained through play, but, once you use either a Strength or a Weakness, it cannot be used again.

Using a Strength allows the player to declare the current contest over and that PC has won. So, you could spend a Strength in the middle of a firefight with xenomorphs and they'd all die and you win. To use a Strength, you have to detail some element of your history and then apply that to the current situation. If you're in dark tunnels a la Alien, maybe you grew up on a mining colony and you use your knowledge of mining techniques to plan and execute an ambush and collapse a cave on the bugs. That becomes part of your character from that part forward.

To use a weakness, it's basically the same thing, only this time, the player declares that his character has lost the conflict. The character is removed from the current conflict but, and this is the important part, the player gets to dictate the terms of that loss. Maybe he was captured by the aliens. Maybe he was medevac'd by emergency teams. Maybe the tunnel he was in collapsed, trapping him away from the firefight and he wandered his way back to the surface to rejoin the group. Whatever. The same thing applies here though that applies to the Strengths - you have to detail some element of your history that causes this weakness to manifest and remove you from play. Again, this becomes part of your character from then on.

What I find really interesting in games like this is the concept of shared narrative. The player is empowered specifically, in a very limited way, to be able to shape the story of the game in precisely the same way that the DM can do. Having read and played more than a few of these style of games, I find myself wanting to apply the same concepts to more traditional games.

If the player can come up with a plausible explanation, even if its one that I don't really buy, but, I can accept that he buys it, I'm pretty inclined to go with whatever the player wants. I have a player right now who is playing a Bard in a 4e campaign. Fun character. But, in the last session, they faced wraiths (note to self, NEVER use that creature again. - my first real experience in 4e grind. Yikes). The bardic abilities are skinned in such a way that the character is basically insulting the creatures to death.

Which, honestly, doesn't make a lick of sense to me. But, the player explained it thusly: while the specific ability says that X happens, don't get too hung up on it. Instead of the insult breaking the baddies brain, maybe it simply bolster's the bard's comrades to the point where they become stronger. Or maybe it's like that creature in Harry Potter, the Boggart, where if you laugh at it, it becomes helpless. There are a number of possibilities available if you don't get too tied into the specific description in the books.

Which, to be honest, is good enough for me.