D&D General The Tyranny of Rarity

[JiffyPopTart]

So? Is the amount of things supposed to be impressive? Especially considering your mechanics for running the game...


So, your style of DMing is rolling a d20 and just making the ruling "the higher the roll, the more favorable the result for the PCs"?

Nothing wrong with that, I suppose, but do your players know that is all you do???


Why? Why can't they just roll a fortune die as well? They don't need to track all that stuff and use all those mechanics unless they actually want to play the game using the rules...


No wonder, you basically aren't using any of the rules in D&D, or rules for Shadowrun if you do the same thing. IMO a lot of people might not think of that as actually playing those games.


Given what you've said I am hardly surprised.

Not sure why you have decided our best course of conversation is to be kinda rude about things but no, my games have plenty of use of the rules along with an equal amount of ignoring mechanics for sake of free flowing story.

I'm just stating how I do things, I'm not telling others to do the same. I don't do all the work.

 

[Lanefan]

I've run across several modern RPGs (Tales from the Loop, Fate, Fiasco) where the world-building is a lot more player interactive. It can be a session 0 setup where the players contribute world-building attributes (Player 1: "There's a pirate nation to the north", Player 2: "Yeah, it extorts protection fees from shipping lanes so import goods are really expensive"). Or in other cases, it can come up in play (DM: "Okay Dave, you got a 20 on getting past the guard, how do you do it?" Dave: "We used to be schoolmates and in the swordsman's club. He knows I'm on the up-and-up.").

Rather than be full-on stage director, it can change the DM to being an organizer - they take on facts, scenes and information presented by the players, keep it organized for reference and handles the dice rolling for interactions. This can vary from taking off a small workload, to round-robin DMing in a session to near-DMless play; just whatever level the group feels is right for their game.

Doesn't that model rather destroy the player-side wonder of exploring the setting in-game, when the players already know what's out there because out-of-game they helped put it there?

 

[Vaalingrade]

That's assuming the enjoyment there is meant to come from exploration or surprise.

 

[Lanefan]

That is not and has never been a constant. Even back in Gygax' day it was far from a constant because there was more than one GM in the group and players took the same characters between different DMs.

Yet those different DMs still did all the work in designing their own settings and game worlds (and rules modifications).

And smart GMs have always taken notes from the players to add depth and factors to their worlds; this was among other things made explicit D&D DMing advice in one of the 4e DMGs. Meanwhile there are literal games that have significant followings that tell the GM not to prepare before session zero.

Yes, the so-called No Myth games. I'd attract red mod-text like a horse attracts flies if I typed what I'd like to here...

If you are at the extreme where the GM does all the work rather than just more than most people and you consider this a problem then I suggest you stop claiming that the GM does all the work is a constant and instead look at what other people are doing that takes them less work - and works.

I don't consider "the GM does all the work" to be a problem; rather, I consider it a problem when GMs (and, in some cases, game systems) try to pawn off that work onto the players It's not their job.

 

[Minigiant]

Doesn't that model rather destroy the player-side wonder of exploring the setting in-game, when the players already know what's out there because out-of-game they helped put it there?

I'd counter that with the concept that in most world the characters have some knowledge of the world and nations around them.

French peasants knew England existed right?

 

[Lanefan]

That's assuming the enjoyment there is meant to come from exploration or surprise.

Yes. Without exploration and-or surprise the wonder is largely gone.

 

[DND_Reborn]

Not sure why you have decided our best course of conversation is to be kinda rude about things

Probably because you sounded like you were trying to be boastful and flippant? Sort of like, "Hey, I can do all this stuff and I never bother planning, so I don't see why DMs are doing all this work and wasting time." Your tone reflected mine.

no, my games have plenty of use of the rules along with an equal amount of ignoring mechanics for sake of free flowing story.

Ok, so you didn't mean this when you wrote it:

The scene was run entirely by me rolling some fortune dice (d20 higher is better) and applying the result to whatever.

Because that basically sounds like the players do stuff (tracking things, using rules) and you just "roll a d20" and let a high result be favorable, the rules/mechanics be damned?

I'm just stating how I do things, I'm not telling others to do the same. I don't do all the work.

(bold added)

Of course you don't, no DM does IMO. But you claim you don't do ANY...

Work is something that makes me tired ... GMing does not do that.

Which I find preposterous, frankly. Sorry to say it, but that's the way I see it.

Now, to be clear: I improv a LOT when I DM, too. Nothing wrong with it, but nothing wrong with building a world to play in, either.

Hopefully, you agree with that?

 

[Lanefan]

I'd counter that with the concept that in most world the characters have some knowledge of the world and nations around them.

Some, yes, but often imperfect and rarely far-ranging.

French peasants knew England existed right?

Probably, as England was often the enemy in some war or other and even without that there was a degree of communication and travel between the two. But what did those peasants know about (current-day) Russia? India? Mexico?

I'd posit the answer is "not much".

 

[Oofta]

That's assuming the enjoyment there is meant to come from exploration or surprise.

It does for me, at least in part.

Different people want different things out of games. I don't want a collaboratively designed game, at least not long term. Might be fun short term or change of pace but not long term.

 

[Mordhau]

Probably, as England was often the enemy in some war or other and even without that there was a degree of communication and travel between the two. But what did those peasants know about (current-day) Russia? India? Mexico?

They knew lots. They knew that people with the heads of dogs who may or not have souls lived in those places, as well as people with a single foot so big they could lie on their back and use it for shade.