Why I don't GM by the nose

[Raven Crowking]

Totally agreed. But, I don't have to go that far to show that the DM has 99% of the power at the table and about the only power the players have is voting with their feet.

Again, take the following example:

Player: I try to jump across the pit.
DM: Make your jump check, DC 15.
Player: (rolls) I got a 12.
DM: You fall in the pit. Take 13 damage.

At no point can the player declare that he succeeded. Heck, until he rolls the dice, he can't even truly say that his character has started jumping.

So, in the above situation, what power (besides voting with your feet, we both agree that the extremes are there) does the player have?

Player: I jump over the pit.

Alternatively:

Player: I am thinking about jumping the pit. How hard does it look to me?
DM: As far as you can tell, about a DC 15.
Player: Would a running jump help? How deep is the pit? Maybe I could find something to use as a pole-vault.....

etc.

The conclusion (that the player has no power) doesn't follow the evidence (that the player lacks certain specific powers).

"I do not have the power to fly; therefore I have no power. Therefore, I cannot have the power to walk."

A GM is part of a complex social interaction in which his responsibilities (create and maintain background, including NPCs, monsters, and various adventuring sites/adventures; run the game fairly; try to make play at the table balanced and fun) are balanced by rights designed to allow him to meet those responsibilities (control over background; control over rules).

A player is also part of a complex social interaction in which his responsibilities (create and run a fair and interesting character in a way that makes the game more fun for all concerned) is balanced by rights designed to allow him to meet those responsibilities (control over character creation, except where rules or background might be involved; absolute control over character play, except where rules are involved).

In any game that anyone is likely to remain in long, the focus of play is clearly on the decisions the players make concerning their individual characters. The "99% of the power" that the GM has is exercised to provide context for those choices, and to describe/evaluate the consequences of those choices. Those choices, though, are the focus.

This is true in a sandbox. This is true in a narrative game.

Trying to narrow this complex social interaction into "The GM has all the power" or even "The GM has 99% of the power", though, results in an extremely skewed view of what actually occurs during game play.

For instance, even that "99% of the power" is meaningless. 99% of what power? The power to control game play is shared. Bored players can simply do something. A bored GM can simply throw an enemy at the PCs. If the bored player discovers that the GM will not allow her to do anything, or that anything she chooses to do has no consequence, the solution is clear. Find (or make) a new game.

The power to control PC interactions, except in the case of Charm spells and the like, is entirely in the players' court. If the bored GM discovers that the players simply will not react to anything she introduces, the solution is clear. Find new players, or change what you are running.

Or, to put it even more succinctly:

In this particular scenario, what power does the DM have? As far as I can tell, the DM set a challenge; the player declared an action to resolve that challenge; the DM set a condition for the player to meet; both parties agreed to abide by an independent arbiter (the dice) to resolve said challenge.

1. The DM exercised his power in creating a challenge and setting the conditions to overcome said challenge.
2. The Player exercised his power in choosing to engage this challenge and how.
3. Both transferred their power to an independent arbiter to resolve this challenge.

The player has the power to choose to engage a challenge, how to engage the challenge, and whether to agree or disagree to a means to resolve the challenge.

RC

 

[Raven Crowking]

So the DM is never supposed to throw out a red herring; to describe something that's in fact completely mundane in order to throw you off the track?

Well, if you throw out "world flavour" that is irrelevant, it might become possible for the players to believe that wolf-in-sheep's-clothing is actually a bunny on a stump.

They might not know that the raven in the tree is a familiar.

They might not know what they are supposed to do with a statue in a courtyard.

No, I am afraid that world flavour makes leading by the nose far too difficult!

EDIT: You can easily create a game experience where the optimal choices are not readily apparent, and player decisions are important, because they must determine what they should do. You can easily create a game experience where the optimal choices are obvious, and player decisions become unimportant because the players know what they should do; not following those optimums isn't really going to happen. You can make a game experience in which some decisions are obvious and some are not; the ones that are not are going to be the ones in which player decisions matter.

What you cannot do is both decide what the players should do for them, and have their choices be meaningful.


RC

 

[Dausuul]

I don't entirely agree with this. At least as I read the 4e PHB, players get to choose a race, a class, a paragon path and an epic destiny for their PC. This all sets some parameters on the gameworld, which the GM is not free just to ignore.

I know some people contend that the GM is always free to veto any given race, class, PP or ED. But this isn't written into the PHB. (It may be in Essentials. I haven't seen those players' books. If it is, it would be yet another reason why I like the technical design of Essentials but dislike the feel of the RPG it describes.)

...what?

It's always seemed obvious to me that the DM has the absolute right to exclude any-damn-thing from his or her campaign world. You don't want elves in your world, there ain't no elves and nobody can play one. That's been the case in D&D since the beginning. Likewise, if you want to make up your own races, you can do that too. I have, many times.

The day I am informed that I have to include warforged in my game world is the day I quit running D&D*.

[size=-2]*Well, actually it's the day I tell the person making this claim, "Very funny. Now make a PC who isn't a robot." But that doesn't sound nearly as dramatic.[/size]

 

[howandwhy99]

Or I suppose we could take a peek at Malenkirk's table:

GM: You see a pit. What do you?
Player: (picks his nose) I dunno... Umm... I guess I make a Dungeoneering check to try to figure out whatever you had in mind for the pit. (rolls dice) 15.
GM: You should try jumping over the pit.
Player: Okay. I do that.
GM: Make your jump check.
Player: 12.
GM: You fall in the pit. Take 13 points of damage.

Personally, I would drop Dungeoneering rolls or any Knowledge-based rolls that asked the question "what do you, the DM, want me to do here?" I believe that gets back to telling the players how the should play the game rather than letting them play it for their own ends. But that's up to what everyone at the table desires.

BIG SNIP
(Other games have more formal rules for linking the setting of the scene to various elements of the PCs, either by directly empowering the players in scene setting or by obliging the GM to include certain elements that are drawn from the PCs. D&D doesn't.)
BIG SNIP
In a good game with hard scene framing the GM has a large degree of power, because they get to originate the scenes, but the players also have some power - they have a major influence over how any given scene resolves, and they also have at least indirect influence over scene framing in the first place, because a good GM will be building scenes that pick up on elements of the PCs that the players are keen to explore further in the game.

To the first, I think D&D has always had a poor set of unwritten rules. IMO, any time the players are submitting PC backgrounds they are putting stuff into the game. The DM works with them to clarify elements and say no to what contradicts the code behind the screen, but even this is part of learning that code and the playing of the game.
To the second quote, this is a lot what the DM is doing. If the players declare they are going shopping for a boat, then the GM needs to either generate a boat or configure what a "boat" is to the players in order to include it. Player intentions are always telling the ref what they desire, though questioning to find a higher degree of explicitness is often required.

I know some people contend that the GM is always free to veto any given race, class, PP or ED. But this isn't written into the PHB.

I disagree with any kind of veto power too. Listed races and classes are prepared works like those found in the 4E PHB, but any race, class, power, whatever, could be submitted under the last on that list: Custom. For me, this works just like backgrounds.

If the DM only describes things that are relevant all the time the game would be rather boring.

"Jim has just described that door, must be worth investigating."

My question is, what is relevant? How is the DM supposed to know beforehand what is relevant to the players and what isn't without those players telling him or her beforehand?

I think this mindset is coming from another question, what does the DM want me to do here? My response would be: play your class. Be the best fighting man, cleric, magic-user you can be. That's the game's objective.

Perhaps plot relevancy is what's being referred to though. "What is the plotline we are supposed to follow that the DM has created?" Well, my plot is the same as in most games, games like chess, cards, sports, and boardgames. That is, figure out how to achieve the objectives you've set. There is no one path. In Chess the plot is the rules. Ditto for the other games. In my D&D games the plot is the code behind the screen, like a game of Mastermind it is decoded slowly but surely through play. The world is the plot and everything in it, not a series of events players are expected to follow.

So, what is the description supposed to be relevant to? Until we know that, I find it impossible to answer ...well, relevantly.

 

[JacktheRabbit]

Consider for a moment that I'm a guy who never saw anything but the movies, liked the first one and the scenes on Bespin in the second but thought the rest of the film series was dreck, never read a single written word about Han Solo in any of the novels or comic books, and didn't watch the Christmas special.

Then re-read my statement in context, which is to say, both sentences.

Now tell me, was there really anything not clear about my meaning?

Then I would say you dont pay attention very well. When "Han shot first" he shot someone who had a gun pointed at him and said he was going to take Hans ship over his dead body.

Sorry you need a better example of a "dont give a crap about the world self-centered rogue" than this. This one is rather obvious self defense.

 

[The Shaman]

So the DM is never supposed to throw out a red herring; to describe something that's in fact completely mundane in order to throw you off the track?

It gets mighty predictable (and thus, gawdawful boring) if you can tell something's relevant and-or needs to be examined closer only because the DM bothered to describe it.

I'm going to go out on a limb here and guess that richness of setting doesn't matter much to you.

Sounds like.

Maybe the DM led them there. Maybe the PCs decided to go there on their own, or going there made sense for whatever reason. Maybe the DM doesn't want the PCs there at all. You've no way of knowing until after you've interacted with it - note that said interaction *can* consist of turning around and leaving - and observed results if any.

What I simply don't understand is the reluctance to allow the DM to flesh out the game world and-or to throw a few curveballs at you.

I don't get that, either.

I actually prefer a mix: some who want to be heroic, some who are only out for themselves, some who just want to raise hell, an occasional psychopath - mix well, serve, and watch.

I think that's how most groups of adventurers shake out over time.

In my experience, the self-interested rogues tend to be most likely to come up with stuff for the adventurers to do. They stir up trouble, whereas the heroes stand around polishing their lordly rods waiting for someone to give them a quest.

Rapscallions for the win, in my book.

 

[howandwhy99]

...what?

It's always seemed obvious to me that the DM has the absolute right to exclude any-damn-thing from his or her campaign world. You don't want elves in your world, there ain't no elves and nobody can play one. That's been the case in D&D since the beginning. Likewise, if you want to make up your own races, you can do that too. I have, many times.

The day I am informed that I have to include warforged in my game world is the day I quit running D&D*.

[size=-2]*Well, actually it's the day I tell the person making this claim, "Very funny. Now make a PC who isn't a robot." But that doesn't sound nearly as dramatic.[/size]

I'm going to just flat out disagree with you here. This stuff is more about table rules or social contract depending upon your parlance. It isn't about not letting anyone play a robot in my campaign world.

I include a "Carebear clause" table rule. That basically means that when a player is determining a custom option for the game, if it's too far out of context the player should think about putting it before the group instead of keeping it secret.

Think of it this way, the player tells me he wants to play a carebear. I say "that's great, but maybe you should put before the others first." They can shoot it down or say "whatever, man. It's your character" and we get on with play.

R2-D2 is an option, but it isn't on the standard list. So, don't think PC-classed droids will be run into before it is submitted.

EDIT:
This is the D&D hodgepodge after all. Isn't carebear in the 1E fiend folio anyways?

 

[Mark CMG]

What you cannot do is both decide what the players should do for them, and have their choices be meaningful.

Certainly not meaningful due to player choice, though one can put their kids to bed and read them a story and have it be meaningful. However, that is largely the difference between a game and a book.

 

[Dausuul]

I'm going to just flat out disagree with you here. This stuff is more about table rules or social contract depending upon your parlance. It isn't about not letting anyone play a robot in my campaign world. ... R2-D2 is an option, but it isn't on the standard list. So, don't think PC-classed droids will be run into before it is submitted.

I don't think DMs are under any obligation to incorporate everything from the Player's Handbook (which I assume is what you mean by "the standard list") when building a campaign world. The deal I offer my players is this: I will build a world, populate it, prepare adventures in it. If you want to play in it--within the constraints I have built into it--you are welcome to do so. If not, I will step down and someone else can run a game.

As a player, if I find I'm not happy with my character concept, I can usually swap characters without much trouble. As DM, however, I'm locked into my chosen setting. If I find I'm not happy with it in a way that can't be solved by superficial retcons, my only option is to kill the whole campaign.

I have learned over the years that it does not pay to be overly accommodating when world-building. If a player wants to be an X and I say, "No Xs in my world," the player will usually make something else and be fine with it. If I agree to work Xs in even though I don't really want them, they will be a permanent fixture in the setting and I will find them increasingly irritating every time I have to deal with them.

To be sure, I am picky about things like theme, atmosphere, and verisimilitude. Not all DMs feel the same way. For many folks, the "kitchen sink" approach works perfectly well, and more power to them. But if I am expected to incorporate every wacky thing the players feel like playing, or work in the same standard list of Tolkien rejects game after game, I'm just not gonna DM; world-crafting is where much if not most of my DM fun comes from.

Think of it this way, the player tells me he wants to play a carebear. I say "that's great, but maybe you should put before the others first." They can shoot it down or say "whatever, man. It's your character" and we get on with play.

Well, anybody can ask to play anything. I take much the same approach, except that I may well respond to this request with, "No, you can't play a Carebear. Not even if the rest of the group is 100% cool with it."

This is the D&D hodgepodge after all. Isn't carebear in the 1E fiend folio anyways?

If you object to my excising races from the Player's Handbook, you don't want to know the amount of stuff I cut from the monster books.

 

[Raven Crowking]

Can someone XP Dausuul for me?