The Story and The Rules

[John Morrow]

I think there are two kinds of DMs, and I don't know what to call them. Maybe "game first plot second" GFPS vs. "plot first game second" PFGS (kinda like that Myers-Briggs personality profile).

The issue is not always "game", per se. It's more complicated than that. For example, I do fudge, but more for realism or balance concerns than story concerns. What I don't want is a game that reacts noticably to the PCs in a way that does not come from the setting.

There was a thread on rec.games.frp.advocacy years ago about "GM Biases". The gist of the thread was GM techniques that really annoy players when they notice them. In most cases, they were either techniques that some GMs consider golden or they could be good techniques used sparingly. The problem is that once the players notice them, they stop playing the setting or story and start playing the GM.

Examples given included "Fair Play" (as long as the players try hard, they'll succeed), "Creativity Rewards" (the more innovative and complex a plan is, the more likely it is to succeed), "Favorite NPC's" (interesting or plot-critical NPCs get protected by the GM), "Interesting Times" (nothing is ever easy and plans never work out as expected), "No Free Lunch" (the PCs never get anything good that they didn't pay for or earn), "Appropriate Challenge" (whatever the PCs fight will be just the right power level to challenge them), "Speed is Life" (quick action is always preferable to investigation and planning), and "Cruel to be Kind" (you can get a better game by making the players unhappy).

I'm sure there are more than a few GMs reading that list thinking, "Hey! That's ME!" And for certain groups, all of those techniques can be good ones. But they can also change the way the players play in unintentional ways.

An example given was a game with a GM that believed that "no plan ever survives contact with the enemy" (i.e., "Interesting Times"). The player eventually realized that when she discussed her plans with the GM, the plans would never work. When she didn't discuss her plans with the GM and presented them as improvised decision making, they would usually work. So guess what the player did?

Basically, each time a GM fudges a decision to replace either what would naturally happen in the game setting if it were a real place or what the rules say, they are introducing a bias into the game. If that bias is used with a heavy hand or repeatedly, the players can (and often will) notice the bias and stop playing the setting or scenario and start playing to the GM's biases. In some cases, that's genre appropriate or what everyone wants. In other cases, it isn't and it just becomes players and GMs playing games with each other. Or, worse, it can destroy the suspension of disbelief for the player or rob them of any feeling of achievement when they succeed in the game.

So my basic opinion on this thread is that the "story" is something that takes form after the smoke clears from all of the dice rolling, and hopefully your design has made it an interesting one. My players would not be satisfied with a story that I obtained "on the cheap" by fudging the rules and the rolls. But I say that as a GFPS DM who targets his style towards players of the same mind-set. IMO all parties (GM and players) are necessary to the game and everyones gaming style should be respected, no matter who does the most work.

I think that ultimately (and Ryan Dancey claimed that WotC polling data suggests this) that everyone wants it all. People want to play in games that have believable settings, challenging encounters, are fast and fun, and make for good stories afterward. The problem comes from trying to reliably reproduce those elements and the more a GM or the players do to reliably produce a certain type of experience, the more artificial the whole experience can become. It's like swimming in a swimming pool instead of the ocean, driving on a road instead of off-road, or going on a tour rather than exploring a place yourself. Yes, you get an acceptably predictable result but it's not going to be the same.

Depending on what you value the most will depend on what you are willing to sacrifice. If you value a good story the most, you might be able to sacrifice player freedom and the rules. If you value player freedom and surprise, you might settle for a game that doesn't make for a good story. If you want a good tactical experience, maybe some realism has to suffer. And where I think it really runs off the rails is when a GM stops trying to have it all and simply steps all over any other concern for the element that matters most to them.

 

[John Morrow]

There's that risk, but for my group at least, it's very small. Not only are all my players also GMs, but they're also long-time roleplayers.

Most of my players are also GMs and all are long-term role-players, so I know what you are talking about. The sort of improv games that you describe can be wonderful but they aren't something you can package. Either the GM and players can figure out how to do it or they can't.

For other groups, it may be more of a problem; I've certainly gamed with folks that essentially wanted the GM to tell them what to do or they just sat there listlessly waiting for something to happen to them.

Well, it's not just that. We run into problems related to characterization. If it makes the most sense for a character to do something that will derail the whole game, it can be a struggle to prevent that from happening because just forcing the character to do something out of character can wreck a character for certain types of players.

True, and I'm not above using some subtle manipulation myself from time to time. As long as its sufficiently subtle.

GMs simply need to realize that they aren't always as subtle as they think they are. Of course my current problem (I'm GMing the longest-running game that I've GMed in years) is that I think some of the players who are also GMs suspect that I'm fudging a lot more than I really am.

Very rarely. I assume you mean something like, fudge so that the BBEG isn't defeated too early and anti-climactically, for example. Luckily, my game is open ended enough that I can add layers at the drop of a hat. Oh, you defeated the BBEG? Well guess what? He was just a stooge of this other guy over here... And likewise. I'd rather play the game out, and then work between sessions to make sure that the campaign itself is satisfying, even if it means soap-opera-like twists to accomodate what actually happens in-game.

In some cases, I personally like to have the BBEG defeated anti-climactically and, well, that's it. We sometimes take a series of Fridays off in the summer to run a 4-session min-campaign so a a friend from college who can't play on weekends can play. He ran the last one and there was a point where we simply planned well and just stomped all over his bad guys. Was it a good story? No. Was it a satisfying experience in character? Yes. And I'm glad the GM didn't add twists simply to make the game meet some sort of artificial "climax complexity quotient".

In the game I'm running, the PCs took out a more powerful enemy with a well-planned ambush in two rounds. Anti-climactic? Sure. Fun? Yes. And that's what concerns me about fudging for story. You'll never have a quick defeat that's satisfying in character (that "I love it when a plan comes together" feeling) if the GM feels that nothing should ever be easy for story-logic reasons. Heck, I roll for a whole lot of things and even allow convenient coincidences, something thats a big no-no from a story perspective.

Frankly, if I had players that didn't bite on plot hooks, I probably would burn out really quickly on running a game for them. It'd be a moot point because the game would stall due to apparent disinterest on both sides.

Even if they do bite, they don't necessarily have to go in the direction that produces a satisfying story. I've run a PC, for example, that let an addiction kill him early in a campaign. Probably not the best thing for the story but I preferred that to fudging to keep him going. It was the direction the game and the character took and I was happy the GM didn't fight it.

 

[PapersAndPaychecks]

This phrase needs to be highlighted and repeated:

I'm glad the GM didn't add twists simply to make the game meet some sort of artificial "climax complexity quotient".

Word.

 

[gizmo33]

And where I think it really runs off the rails is when a GM stops trying to have it all and simply steps all over any other concern for the element that matters most to them.

Up until this last part I couldn't figure out what we had to disagree about.

The GM bias list was really cool - thanks. Personally I would use that as a list of "never do this". I've played in games where GMs have had those biases, it's not fun IMO.

I know that the DM can step on the rules, and I suppose that the GM can "step" on the plot except that even in plot-driven games, the players recognize that the DM is in charge anyway. What I suppose you could say is that GMs can run games that wind up having boring plots because of random or unanticipated in-game events. Of course game-driven DMs for the most part still do what they can to make sure that the randomized events will take on some measure of an interesting tale.

The bottom line is, I just don't recognize a plot-driven game as the type of DnD game I enjoy and neither do the vast majority of players that I've DMed (which says nothing about the general community). Anything I do to fudge, from the GM bias list or not, is not appreciated by the players. No one has ever said "gee, that was cool the way you saved that game by making 20 saving throws in a row for the bad guy". I'm willing to recognize that other people have other agendas when they play DnD, but I don't really see what there is to argue about, and what exactly it is that I'm "stepping on". Perhaps, to a killer DM, my DMing style is "stepping" on the part of the game where you get to kill PCs because I only kill them once in a while.

But while some of this is a matter of taste, what I will say is that DMs who fudge "a little" are still plot-driven DMs. I say this because IME plot-driven players will still have fun in your game while game-driven players will not.

 

[John Morrow]

The GM bias list was really cool - thanks. Personally I would use that as a list of "never do this". I've played in games where GMs have had those biases, it's not fun IMO.

Just bear in mind that when I've listed those biases in other forums, including the Pyramid message boards, I got plenty of responses to the effect, "That's how I GM and I consider that good GMing".

What I suppose you could say is that GMs can run games that wind up having boring plots because of random or unanticipated in-game events.

I
Stories don't operate by the same logic that reality does. There is a scene in The Princess Bride where the grandfather tells the child that Prince Humperdink doesn't die. The kid response, "Jesus, Grandpa! What are you reading me this thing for!" People expect stories to have satisfying endings. They don't expect important plot twists the be tied up by Deus Ex Machina solutions or happy coincidences. They expect the questions raised by the plot to be answered by the end of the story (or for there to be a promise that some sequel will answer it). And, as was the case when I recently saw National Treasure, if the characters are spilling gunpowder all over the place, I expect that ship to blow up by the end of the scene.

Authors don't write stories full of random events, tangents, and convenient coincidences because the audiences have no patience for it. But that's exactly what you can get with random and setting-based decisions. Sometimes the dragon bakes the heroes and the dragon's captive isn't saved. Sometimes the heroes die an unheroic death in a minor trap because of some bad die rolls. Sometimes the city guard catches the bad guy instead of the PCs. And so on. If your players are expecting a story and you give them real life, you'll get players just as disappointed as that kid in The Princess Bride.

Of course game-driven DMs for the most part still do what they can to make sure that the randomized events will take on some measure of an interesting tale.

Well, that goes back to people really wanting it all and what I said about good GMs keeping things in perspective and using some moderation.

The bottom line is, I just don't recognize a plot-driven game as the type of DnD game I enjoy and neither do the vast majority of players that I've DMed (which says nothing about the general community).

I personally agree with you. But go over to The Forge, RPGnet, the Pyramid message boards, some of the Usenet groups, etc. and you'll often find a majority of players with very different priorities. Like I said, I've seen that same mix of biases generate a series of responses calling it good game mastering. And for some people, it is.

Anything I do to fudge, from the GM bias list or not, is not appreciated by the players. No one has ever said "gee, that was cool the way you saved that game by making 20 saving throws in a row for the bad guy".

On the other hand, one of the best illustrations I've ever read of why a player prefers a more cinematic style of role-playing where the good guys always win was posted to the Usenet years ago. The person put it this way: "I don't play to be the guy who grabs his chest and yells, 'I've been hit!'" Some people are as disappointed by having their characters die as the kid was by being told that Prince Humperdink wouldn't be dead by the end of the story.

I'm willing to recognize that other people have other agendas when they play DnD, but I don't really see what there is to argue about, and what exactly it is that I'm "stepping on". Perhaps, to a killer DM, my DMing style is "stepping" on the part of the game where you get to kill PCs because I only kill them once in a while.

For some players (see the quote above), one dead NPC is too may. I've been on the receiving end, as a player, of a GM who wouldn't kill PCs and personally hated it. But there are people who prefer that. Of course one major lesson I've learned about style preferences is that people rarely ever understand someone else's preferences, because it's a matter of taste, not a matter of logic. Don't try to understand it. Just accept it. You'll be happier that way.

But while some of this is a matter of taste, what I will say is that DMs who fudge "a little" are still plot-driven DMs. I say this because IME plot-driven players will still have fun in your game while game-driven players will not.

In my experience, a whole lot of this really comes down to what the players notice. If the GM fudges and the players never notice, it doesn't really matter why it was done or how the players would feel about it. So plenty of plot-driven GMs can and do get away with fudging just a little and the setting or game-driven players are quite happy because they don't know any better. Of course that only gets you so far when your players GM, too.

My group normally rolls all dice in the open (including the GM most of the time). My players insisted that I use a screen for D&D (this is the first D&D game that we've played in at least a decade and the first that I've ever DMed) and I do roll behind it. Unfortunately, I think the players think I do a lot more fudging that I do (which is mainly for setting-logic reasons, not story reasons) so I've been tempted to start rolling out in the open again.

 

[weasel fierce]

The sole responsibility of the DM is to make the game as fun, exciting and challenging as possible.
Any rule that supports the above is good.
Any rule that gets in the way should be tossed.