The core mechanic -- am I doing it wrong?

[Noumenon]

Monte Cook quotation from here:

The core mechanic of #dnd is: player says 'I want to X' and DM responds. Therein lie the stories.

I think I might want it to be a little different. I want to say "I do X" and the DM responds. That is, I want the rules to be so clear on what I can do that I don't need the DM to tell me what happens when I try; my character sheet and the dice do that.

Any big drawbacks to this approach? I mean sure you get surprised once in a while, but is Monte saying you should just say "I cast Charm Person" and the DM determines everything about how that plays out?

 

[Mercurius]

You might be reading too much into it. "I want to X" and "I do X" are basically the same thing; the difference you seem to be pointing out is that the former can imply that the DM has to figure out if X is possible, whereas the latter implies that the player knows it is possible based upon his or her character sheet.

I think the point is that a PC can do whatever they want, whether or not it is on the character sheet or defined by rules. Furthermore, I think he's saying that the core mechanic is the interaction between the player and DM, with the player deciding what he or she wants to do and the DM adjudicating that. The rules are just there to give guidelines and help the process along.

 

[Yora]

Well, if you want to jump over a chasm of undetermined width, it makes a real difference if you say "I jump over it", roll the dice and the DM says "you are dead".
Better is to say "I would like to jump over it. Is it a distance that my character should be able to make?" to which the DM would reply "That's awfully wide. If you try, there's a really good chance you won't make it."

 

[DMKastmaria]

Monte Cook quotation from here:



I think I might want it to be a little different. I want to say "I do X" and the DM responds. That is, I want the rules to be so clear on what I can do that I don't need the DM to tell me what happens when I try; my character sheet and the dice do that.

Any big drawbacks to this approach? I mean sure you get surprised once in a while, but is Monte saying you should just say "I cast Charm Person" and the DM determines everything about how that plays out?

The more delimitations you hardwire into the rules, the further you're going to restrain the groups collective imagination and creativity.

My own preference is for rules that are highly subservient to the imagination.
That does require playing D&D with people you like, respect and have fun working with. Reasonable adults, with a sense of humor and willingness to put the needs of the campaign and group first.

This is why a lot of old schoolers will tell you that "the group provides the games' balance." It does. (And the focus is more on the players, than their characters.)

That approach requires trust. With the right group, it runs like a dream.

 

[ExploderWizard]

The more delimitations you hardwire into the rules, the further you're going to restrain the groups collective imagination and creativity.

My own preference is for rules that are highly subservient to the imagination.
That does require playing D&D with people you like, respect and have fun working with. Reasonable adults, with a sense of humor and willingness to put the needs of the campaign and group first.

This is why a lot of old schoolers will tell you that "the group provides the games' balance." It does. (And the focus is more on the players, than their characters.)

That approach requires trust. With the right group, it runs like a dream.

Gotta spread some XP around.

It is time the adjudication of the game returned to the people playing.

 

[hanez]

I my experience with rules light, and rules heavy systems the more detailed and clear rules are, the less imaginative and fun the game is. It deeply effects my players and the way they speak and act at the game table. The more detailed and clear every single thing is, the less players just dream up cool ideas, the less they trust the dm to make a great game, maybe even the less they ENABLE the DM to make a great game.

I miss the days when my melee players would say "I swing off the chandalier and land on him with my sword down" or "Im going to try and climb the serpents back and stab him in the mouth" and without having ANY IDEA how I was going to rule it, they would nevertheless have faith that I would rule actions fairly with the intent of making the game fun. Now they use power x, cause 2W damage with a slide effect, and repeat, and any attempt at creativity draws suspicion of rule lawyers that are ENCOURAGED to slow down and take the life out of my game by overly specific rules.

Dont get me wrong, I want rules, lots of rules, but I want them to be fluffy, bendable, guidlines, I want them to enable great DMs to make great games. And bad DMs, well Im less concerned about that because who really wants to play with them anyways. But as always the DMG should focus on DMing strategies and guidelines to help new DMs

 

[Noumenon]

Furthermore, I think he's saying that the core mechanic is the interaction between the player and DM, with the player deciding what he or she wants to do and the DM adjudicating that.

Perhaps I am Asperger's or something; I don't feel like it's about interacting with the DM the way I do it. The DM is basically playing the role of the X-box in Dragon Age: Origins -- it would feel weird to say the core mechanic there is about "interacting" with the computer. It's about the player deciding things and seeing what happens.

I also tend to not do anything that isn't on my character sheet or in the rules... being able to do those things is what the game hooked me with, and that's what I want to do. If I can argue someone into something, but I don't get to roll an Intimidate check, I'm not happy.

I think this is what Zak S's most recent post is about -- people who play D&D, but without social skills. I think the next time I watch people fudging the rules I'll try to see it from the perspective Monte's quote seemed to come from: "for them, this is just a way to get their emotions entrained together and feel friendly. Like a party."

 

[Astrosicebear]

The DM has a story he wants to tell. The players want to partake in the game, not necessarily the story. So for most editions, the DM has a story he wants the players to be involved in, and the players dont know the main story, so they try to live in the world, and often go off in other directions, so the DM has to wrangle them back in. For the most part its DM story vs Player sidetracking.

If the new edition gives DM's and players more tools to allow a common ground to be met, thats all the better. If the system itself promotes story, and the system itself wants players to activly partake in the story the DM is telling, and the system itself gives the DM more tools to tell that story without players derailing it, all the better I say. A good DM is great, but a Great DM can still be blindsided by players. A system that will allow any DM to say 'OK' more than 'NO' is great.

 

[billd91]

Perhaps I am Asperger's or something; I don't feel like it's about interacting with the DM the way I do it. The DM is basically playing the role of the X-box in Dragon Age: Origins -- it would feel weird to say the core mechanic there is about "interacting" with the computer. It's about the player deciding things and seeing what happens.

I think it's important to note that the main mechanic of role playing games involves the player interacting with the DM. The mechanic is how your interaction with the game world is operationalized and handled. You may feel, using your X-Box, that you're interacting with Ferelden and its denizens, but the mechanic of doing so is by manipulating your X-box controls and how the operating system interprets those inputs within the structure of the game's code.

 

[DMKastmaria]

The DM has a story he wants to tell. The players want to partake in the game, not necessarily the story. So for most editions, the DM has a story he wants the players to be involved in, and the players dont know the main story, so they try to live in the world, and often go off in other directions, so the DM has to wrangle them back in. For the most part its DM story vs Player sidetracking.

No offense, but pardon me while I retch.

I don't tell stories. I DM player driven campaigns.