The Story and The Rules

[S'mon]

Oh, I think Mentzer's opinion sucks BTW. It might have some value to authors trying to write a "standard 3e scenario" for publication, but for GMs it's nonsense.

 

[PapersAndPaychecks]

Actually Narrativists (Edwards) would say that was Illusionism (GM creates an illusion of player choice while running them through a pre-plotted story). Edwards defines Narrativism as something like "drama founded on premise" - the premise being a question, like "What am I prepared to do for love?", and the game addresses that question.

While Edwards makes interesting reading, I don't necessarily agree with all of his terms and definitions, which strike me as designed to lead towards his conclusions rather than being semantically neutral.

Some extreme examples: Edwards chooses to define Gary Gygax as a "simulationist" which, in my view, is clear evidence that this "Simulationist" that he repeatedly lambasts is a thinly-disguised straw man. Edwards also explicitly states that in his view "Rules-light" is not a valid concept in RPG design, and perpetrates various other conneries that expose his terms of reference for what they are: sophistry and casuistry.

I should have said that I used the term "Narrativist" in the sense of its natural meaning, not in the Edwards sense. Edwards avoids the term "Emulationist" so I don't feel I need to elaborate on that.

 

[PapersAndPaychecks]

Oh, I think Mentzer's opinion sucks BTW. It might have some value to authors trying to write a "standard 3e scenario" for publication, but for GMs it's nonsense.

I don't agree with Mr Mentzer's view, as I said, but I will just say that Frank Mentzer appears to be totally unconcerned with 3e.

 

[Hand of Evil]

Quasqueton, I do so enjoy your topics.

It is all about group dynamics, what is the group you are playing with like? What type of game do they play; fast and loose, thight and controlled, more role-playing or more roll-playing, descriptive or text book. There are so many combos.

If a DM has something happen, or an NPC do something that "breaks" the rules, does it bother you in any way?

No - Rule 0: The DM has the right, it is his/her game.

Is it OK if the "something" is interesting, or makes for a good story?

The DM has the right, it is his/her game.

If a DM prevents or disallows a PC from doing something within the rules, does it bother you in any way?

Yes - Players have their own books and IF it has not been discussed before hand the player should not be penized for playing their character.

Is it OK if the "something" would make the situation less interesting, or undermine the story?[

The DM has the right, it is his/her game BUT there needs to be a reason, character interaction, character devolopment, cold, flu. This is why you have house rules, you should not bend or break rules in game but address them prior to the game or after the game, explainnng the reasons for the bend, break, change.

Is it good DMing to bend/break the game rules for the sake of a good story?

No - The DM has the right, it is his/her game BUT it is more important to have fun, this means players and DM, sometimes the story has to take a backseat. This is why you have house rules, you should not bend or break rules in game but address them prior to the game or after the game, explainnng the reasons for the bend, break, change.

Is it good DMing to make the story work within the rules?

Yes - Everyone likes it when a plan comes together, having a story within the rules or having the rules work within the story, if it works and the players interact with it and all have fun, it is a good thing.

 

[Storm Raven]

I'm quite sure you know that not everyone plays that way. To me, though, the story is the product of the game, not something the GM has already in mind before the game even starts. I mean, sure, I have some plot hooks and some vague idea of what will likely happen based on likely PC reactions, but I don't write a story and then cram it down my players' throats.

But I still play for the story. If there's no good story at the end of the night, I've wasted my time.

Let me rephrase: you are the DM. Your job is not to set up a story. Your job is to run a game. If a story happens, it should primarily belong to the players and flow from their actions, not from your set up.

 

[Purzel]

No - Rule 0: The DM has the right, it is his/her game.

[...]

The DM has the right, it is his/her game.

[...]

The DM has the right, it is his/her game

[...]

No - The DM has the right, it is his/her game

[...]

I think you're totally wrong here. The DM does not "own" the game -- infact, this is the worst, illogical, unsatisfying possible excuse for bending a rule. Rule Zero should be something like: "It's just a game, play to have fun." or something else using common-sense.

A roleplay is something a group is doing, not some show-off-solo-ego-trip of the gamemaster. Keep that in mind. One of the DMs metagame-jobs should be to make the game enjoyable for everyone at the table, not just her.

Thus when breaking the rules leads to frustrated players, the DM made a bad choice by doing so.

 

[Belen]

Let me rephrase: you are the DM. Your job is not to set up a story. Your job is to run a game. If a story happens, it should primarily belong to the players and flow from their actions, not from your set up.

Oh bull. The players are characters in a choose your own adventure scenario. The players do not create the story. They do not sit down and tell the GM that "today, we will find a village being overrun by Orcs. Make it happen."

The DM creates the stories and sets up the encounters. A good GM incorporates the actions, desires, goals, and choices of the PCs into the game so that it seems they are having an impact on the world.

The world is still the domain of the GM who has to create all the NPCs, factions, bad guys, cities etc for a character to interact. A good world has a story that exist independent of the PCs. Good players interact with the world and try and affect it for the better.

It is the absolute responsibility of the GM to create a story and environment that engages the characters.

 

[Belen]

I think you're totally wrong here. The DM does not "own" the game -- infact, this is the worst, illogical, unsatisfying possible excuse for bending a rule. Rule Zero should be something like: "It's just a game, play to have fun." or something else using common-sense.

A roleplay is something a group is doing, not some show-off-solo-ego-trip of the gamemaster. Keep that in mind. One of the DMs metagame-jobs should be to make the game enjoyable for everyone at the table, not just her.

Thus when breaking the rules leads to frustrated players, the DM made a bad choice by doing so.

No GM. No game.

Rule zero was created to give the GM leeway in crafting worlds and encounters that go above and beyond the stock game. It allows the GM to add a unique quality to the game. The point of the game is to play and have fun, which is not the point of rule zero.

In your view, the GM is just another player. If you feel that way, then you should put just as much work into the game as the GM.

 

[PapersAndPaychecks]

In your view, the GM is just another player. If you feel that way, then you should put just as much work into the game as the GM.

Your remarks were not addressed to me, but I concur: The GM is just another player, and the players should put just as much work into the game as the GM.

To get the most out of a game, a player needs to develop his/her character(s) - create details of family, associates, history, background, culture etc. with the GM's approval, just as the GM should consult players in developing the milieu. The fact that the GM remains the final arbitor does not mean the GM should have to create everything in the game solo.

 

[Belen]

If a DM has something happen, or an NPC do something that "breaks" the rules, does it bother you in any way?

Yes and no. I will never break the rules during an encounter. Rather, I create new rules or break rules to create an off-screen or non-encounter effect. Such as magical wall warding the entire Northern Waste, or a human who seems to have found the fountain of youth and this is ancient, yet appear young, or creating tension through weird, yet non-life threatening effects etc.

The rules should not be broken for encounters, because that is where the PCs shine.

Is it OK if the "something" is interesting, or makes for a good story?

Yes, but see my further comments above.


If a DM prevents or disallows a PC from doing something within the rules, does it bother you in any way?

Yes. Unless it was clearly house-ruled from the beginning of the game.

Is it OK if the "something" would make the situation less interesting, or undermine the story?

No. As a GM, you roll with the punches. If your BBEG dies, then make his boss etc.

Is it good DMing to bend/break the game rules for the sake of a good story?

Yes and no. See above

Is it good DMing to make the story work within the rules?

Yes. When those rules directly affect the players, such as encounters.

No. The tapestry of the world does not need to follow every rule to the tee.