D&D 5E Too many cooks (a DnDN retrospective)

[Remathilis]

So, no. While ref's exercise judgement, they are still absolutely bound by the rules of the game. They don't get to rewrite the rules. Ever. And ref's that go beyond simple judgements usually aren't ref's for very long.

I GET IT NOW. The DM in your worldview is just another player who has the responsibility of running monsters and NPCs. He doesn't have any authority to change the rules (house rule), or setting (beyond what's agreed on by the other players; IE lets use the Forgotten Realms). So you want maximum flexibility because you believe you have the same amount of authority in deciding the rules and setting as the DM (though being limited to a single character).

Ergo, the rules should allow (feasibly) any module to be available (be it mixing of casting types, simple/complex combat resolution, etc) to interact with each other without incident (A Vancian wizard and a mana-point wizard are fairly evenly balanced against one another, as would be someone using specialties and someone who ignores them), since the DM has no right to enforce a certain ruleset on your PC ("My campaign is OS: only vancian and no skills/feats").

This creates a horrible conundrum for the players when the game assumes a certain set of rules as default (such as "roll 4d6, drop the lowest") and then shunts others to the DMG as options (such as "point buy 28 points"). If you are the type who hates rolled PCs (you have bad die luck) and would rather the certainty of 28 points, then you are put in the position of having to "ask" the DM to use the alternate system in the DMG and the DM could say no, therefore exuding more power over you in the game. However, if all the systems are in the beginning of the PHB (ala 4e or SAGA) then all are equally valid and the DM can't tell you to use one over another for your PC.

amirite?

 

[Balesir]

This creates a horrible conundrum for the players when the game assumes a certain set of rules as default (such as "roll 4d6, drop the lowest") and then shunts others to the DMG as options (such as "point buy 28 points"). If you are the type who hates rolled PCs (you have bad die luck) and would rather the certainty of 28 points, then you are put in the position of having to "ask" the DM to use the alternate system in the DMG and the DM could say no, therefore exuding more power over you in the game. However, if all the systems are in the beginning of the PHB (ala 4e or SAGA) then all are equally valid and the DM can't tell you to use one over another for your PC.

From where I stand, as GM, what is more to the point is that, provided all the options are balanced one against the others, I do not need to bother myself with straightjacketing what the players can choose to play as a character. I can just let them get on with developing the character they want to play; I really don't want to have any part in specifying that - I want them to surprise me.

That's not to say I never have any stipulations or specify any limitations - but I do so explicitly and in advance for sound reasons. The default, as far as I'm concerned, should be that "anything is valid". If something is not valid, I'll tell you. I might even tell you why (unless I think it would be more fun for you to find out later...)

 

[timASW]

I view it completely opposite. The default to strangeness is no and they have to give me a reason that isnt complete munchkinism to allow it. So far I havent gotten one for anything but a warforged, once. And that was very cliched but it was at least a reason

 

[Manbearcat]

That's not to say I never have any stipulations or specify any limitations - but I do so explicitly and in advance for sound reasons. The default, as far as I'm concerned, should be that "anything is valid". If something is not valid, I'll tell you. I might even tell you why (unless I think it would be more fun for you to find out later...)

This precisely.

I can't speak for Hussar but I suspect that our table dynamics are not terribly different given his description of his wants. For my group, my role at GM is:

- Facilitator of making clear our Social Contract before a game begans and throughout its course. This includes managing minor, idiosyncratic differences in playstyles between players and clarifying our common goal and expectations of each other.

- Facilitator of Creative Agenda. This includes clarifying genre expectations/logic, thematic/archetype interests, player stance and meta-gaming expectations. Setting will be established by of this solicitation of individual and collective preferences.

- Clarifier and arbitor of Ephemera. This involves the default (and any adjustments to) mechanical resolution tools through which the Creative Agenda will be achieved and calibrated. Our table preference is these are clear, concise and transparent such that my role as arbitor is minimized nearly to the point of non-existence. This includes the interest of maximization of player-driven fiction creation, miinimzation of DM fiat and total lack of DM force in story/plot progression.

- Ceator and player of antagonists, adversity, and color external to the PCs. This involves establishing progressive scenes through which the players will respond by actualizing their thematic/archetype interests (outlined in Creative Agenda) and then responding to their responses (insert feedback loop). Fiction emerges.

Pretty straight forward. Totally legitimate table style. For the most part divergence will probably be (i) the major inclusiveness of, and in many cases ceding authority to, the players in the establishment of the Creative Agenda, (ii) the preference of minimization of role as arbitor by way of highly constrained, hard-coded mechanical resolution tools, and (iii) the interest of maximization of player-driven fiction creation, miinimzation of DM fiat and total lack of DM force in story/plot progression.

 

[Jeff Carlsen]

In my mind, the DM is responsible for the setting, and the players are responsible for running characters within that setting. Since the way magic functions is a setting concern, it belongs in the purview of the DM, and that includes the mechanics.

This doesn't mean that groups don't work together to determine the type of game they're going to play. Whatever process a group uses to determine setting and rule variants should be used to choose casting mechanics. But the DM is the final arbiter on the matter.

The books should present a default for everything. It's the only practical way. Modules and variants should modify the default. Thus, classes should have default spellcasting mechanics.

 

[Warbringer]

Why does WOTC have to state, "The default for D&D is Wizards use Vancian casting"? How is that easier or better? Why not showcase flexibility?

Because flexibility increases choice and inceased choice creates complexity in a sale , meaning less sales

 

[SageMinerve]

In my mind, the DM is responsible for the setting, and the players are responsible for running characters within that setting. Since the way magic functions is a setting concern, it belongs in the purview of the DM, and that includes the mechanics.

This doesn't mean that groups don't work together to determine the type of game they're going to play. Whatever process a group uses to determine setting and rule variants should be used to choose casting mechanics. But the DM is the final arbiter on the matter.

The books should present a default for everything. It's the only practical way. Modules and variants should modify the default. Thus, classes should have default spellcasting mechanics.

Can't XP you, but you succinctly summarized my opinion on the subject.

 

[Remathilis]

From where I stand, as GM, what is more to the point is that, provided all the options are balanced one against the others, I do not need to bother myself with straightjacketing what the players can choose to play as a character. I can just let them get on with developing the character they want to play; I really don't want to have any part in specifying that - I want them to surprise me.

That's not to say I never have any stipulations or specify any limitations - but I do so explicitly and in advance for sound reasons. The default, as far as I'm concerned, should be that "anything is valid". If something is not valid, I'll tell you. I might even tell you why (unless I think it would be more fun for you to find out later...)

Let me lay out a scenario pretty much what I'm talking about now and what Hussar is advocating.

Right now, the sorcerer in 3.5 is defaulted to a particular casting method (spontaneous). Without modification to the rules, I assume (as do all people playing in my game) that sorcerers use the rules in the PHB as written.

Then one day, a player joins who says "I want to be a sorcerer, but I want to use the spell points rules in Unearthed Arcana. Its an official D&D supplement so you should let me."

Now, I have a couple of options:
1.) Say no. I run my game using the PHB rules and I don't want to change them. If you want a point-caster, might I suggest psion?
2.) Say no. I may not even allow wizards and clerics (replacing them with mystics and sorcerers) to have a world where magic has a certain feel. Spell points might ruin that feel.
3.) Allow it after careful consideration as to how this changes magic in my game. Do I allow him this option? How does this change the fiction (if any) or the other casters (who weren't given this option; can they now switch?)
4.) Just say yes. What can it hurt?

The current system (default X, option Y elsewhere) allows me these options. Hussar believes both systems should be presented side-by-side and that the player has the right to pick either of them as he chooses. He takes the choice of magic system away from me (as the DM) and claims it all for himself.

Like lots of things, I think that choice should (at best) be a give-and-take between the DM and player. Much like ability scores (point buy or rolled) or other options (prestige classes, alternate class abilities, or UA variants) that should be a choice among all players and the DM. But it doesn't hurt to have a default method (rolled scores, vancian mages) for people who just want to play without careful debate on such matters.

 

[Lanefan]

For my group, my role at GM is:

- Facilitator of making clear our Social Contract before a game begans and throughout its course. This includes managing minor, idiosyncratic differences in playstyles between players and clarifying our common goal and expectations of each other.

- Facilitator of Creative Agenda. This includes clarifying genre expectations/logic, thematic/archetype interests, player stance and meta-gaming expectations. Setting will be established by of this solicitation of individual and collective preferences.

- Clarifier and arbitor of Ephemera. This involves the default (and any adjustments to) mechanical resolution tools through which the Creative Agenda will be achieved and calibrated. Our table preference is these are clear, concise and transparent such that my role as arbitor is minimized nearly to the point of non-existence. This includes the interest of maximization of player-driven fiction creation, miinimzation of DM fiat and total lack of DM force in story/plot progression.

- Ceator and player of antagonists, adversity, and color external to the PCs. This involves establishing progressive scenes through which the players will respond by actualizing their thematic/archetype interests (outlined in Creative Agenda) and then responding to their responses (insert feedback loop). Fiction emerges.

Pretty straight forward. Totally legitimate table style. For the most part divergence will probably be (i) the major inclusiveness of, and in many cases ceding authority to, the players in the establishment of the Creative Agenda, (ii) the preference of minimization of role as arbitor by way of highly constrained, hard-coded mechanical resolution tools, and (iii) the interest of maximization of player-driven fiction creation, miinimzation of DM fiat and total lack of DM force in story/plot progression.

Ye gads - whatever happened to "Hey guys, I've got a setting and some great adventures; who wants to play?"

Social Contract? Creative Agenda?? Arbitor of Ephemera??? That all sounds like a policy document I might see at work, not a game!

Lan-"my ephemera just arbitored its way into your shoulder for 8 points damage"-efan

 

[Manbearcat]

Ye gads - whatever happened to "Hey guys, I've got a setting and some great adventures; who wants to play?"

The question was about how someone, like Hussar, sorts out how their gaming table works. I tried to be thorough and concrete (using established gaming terminology...I thought). I could have said:


- DURRRR STUFF FOR THE PLAYING TOGEHTER LIKE NICE BOYS AND GURLS.

- OK GUYS WHAT DO U LIKE? STARWARS? AFTERMATH (LOL 2 + 2 = 4...MATH)? OK BOB YOU CAN BE JEDI NERFHERDING FARMER GUY. YOUR UNCLE AND AUNTIE ARE TOASTLOL. WUT BOUT MAGIC THOUGH?

- THESE HERE ARE RULES FOR TO BE PLAYING. SEE HOW MUCH SENSE THEY MAKE? OK. GUD. THIS WORKS LIKE THIS. WHEN I DO THIS, YOU GUYS DO THAT. SOUND GUD? GUD. HEY. BTW. YOU GUYS CAN MAKE COOL STUFF UP 2. NOT JUST ME.

- THESE GUYS ARE MY GUYS TO PLAY. OH, LOOK! FALLING ROCKS ON YOUR HEAD. WHAT NOW? ALSO, HEY JEDI NERFHERDING FARMER, UR DROID HAS A FUNNY MESSAGE LIKE A LITTLE GUY POPPING OUT OF HIS HEAD...ONLY C-THROUGH.


I could have done that. But that wouldn't have been very explanatory. And it would have insulted your intelligence and been overall disrespectful. Or, I could have wrapped insincere CAPITAL LETTERS and "amirite" around a large bit of smarm while pretending to respect the person I'm aiming it at.