Why I don't GM by the nose

[Raven Crowking]

My response (not in the sense of rebuttal, but in the sense of what I think is another factor that can be brought to bear to head of the danger that you are pointing to) is to emphasise improvisation - the readiness of the GM to follow the lead of the players, and to construct situations that allow the players to find their own path through them (and, if it comes to it, out of them).

I'm not sure what best suits a novice GM.

I would agree that flexibility is a good quality in a GM, and that it helps to allow players to make meaningful choices. I don't know that I would call it another factor, per se, but rather a tangential that allows the earlier factors (1) and (2) to be brought into gameplay during gameplay...and thus, allowing the players and GM to rebalance (1) and (2) as required or desired over the course of a game session.

And I would certainly recommend that to a novice GM!



RC

 

[Raven Crowking]

A DM does not have the power to end anything other than his involvement -- the same as any other player. The group decides how the group will continue to use its time. The group may decide to break up and go separate ways, start a new shared activity, return to a previous shared activity, or continue the current activity with a new DM.

Agreed.

When I moved from California to Toronto, one of my players took over the current campaign (then focused around the Dungeon of Thale). I wasn't aware of it at the time, and only discovered it when the magic of the InterWeb allowed contact years later....same players, same characters, same setting, all still running.

It is not the campaign as I would have run it, I feel sure. The areas that had not been explored were devised by the new GM. Still, there was continuity for the players, and I am sure my friend did the setting justice. After all, many years later, still running.


RC

 

[kitsune9]

It is not the campaign as I would have run it, I feel sure. The areas that had not been explored were devised by the new GM. Still, there was continuity for the players, and I am sure my friend did the setting justice. After all, many years later, still running.


RC

That's cool! I wish my players would do something like that, but I know that if I were to leave my campaign or someone else take over, it'd be 1st level characters start all over and do something else. Oh well.

 

[Raven Crowking]

That's cool! I wish my players would do something like that, but I know that if I were to leave my campaign or someone else take over, it'd be 1st level characters start all over and do something else. Oh well.

The coolest thing was that it was over two years after I moved that I even found out that the setting was still active in Los Angeles!

There are all sorts of people who are eager to tell you how little power you have. My player decided that he had the power to make a fun game continue, and he was right.

Jesse, this Guiness is for you!*


RC



* The player in question, and the Beer of Kings. Well, Crowkings. You can drink whatever you like.

And, of course, it really helps to have players who are used to being proactive. No one used to being led by the nose would have taken that power upon himself!

 

[Argyle King]

How? How did the player improvise that cult member. He asked the DM if there was a cult member in the group. There wasn't until he suggested it and the DM added it. "It is added" by the DM, not by the player. And, there is no obligation for the DM to add that element. At least no rules obligation.

.

...just curious about your views on something.

In the game I run, I am using an optional rule which allows players to spend Character Points to add plausible elements to the scene. What is 'plausible' depends on the general consensus of the group.If this scenario where being run, the cult member could possibly be an element the player could add.

Would you feel that would be a case of a player having power at the table?

(Admittedly, the player is limited in this by points whereas the GM is not, but I'm curious of your views on playing this way.)

 

[Hussar]

There is no power relationship at the table or authority. It's simply a lens you've chosen to see the relationship through.

Well, at the risk of being guilty of a logical fallacy here, there's about a couple of thousand years of political thinkers that would disagree with you.

You insist that any power relationship must be negative and that's entirely on you.

Look, break it down.

A DM, at any point in time, may declare any element in the game to be true. If he decides that there is a dragon behind that door, then there's a dragon behind that door. If he decides that the party is attacked by assassins while they're resting at the inn, then they get attacked. If he decides that the mayor wants to be helpful, then the mayor is helpful.

A player may not at any point in time declare any element in the game, beyond his own character, to be true.

YOU add the cult member. Not the player. The player suggests it, but, you are under no obligation to do so. The authority rests solely behind the DM's screen. That authority is placed there by the fact that only the DM may, to use your language, change the code in the game.

The players cannot take any action, beyond simply self contained ones, without the tacit approval of the DM.

If I'm no longer involved because I withdrew, it is completely immaterial that the campaign exists for others because it is ended for me. The only reason it matters if the campaign continues is I know a group of people I may want to interact with are busy during a defined period of time.

Although it is uncommon for a player group to continue a campaign rather than start something new (or return to something older) when a campaign ends, it is within the power of the group to make that decision -- not any one member no matter his position in the failed game.

A DM does not have the power to end anything other than his involvement -- the same as any other player. The group decides how the group will continue to use its time. The group may decide to break up and go separate ways, start a new shared activity, return to a previous shared activity, or continue the current activity with a new DM.

You assume that the DM leaves.

That's often not the case. The DM can simply say, "I don't want to run this campaign anymore, I'm not liking it, I want to run this other campaign now." And, that's what happens.

Whether you as a player no longer participate in the campaign or not has no bearing on whether the campaign continues. While it is possible for a campaign to switch DM's, it's pretty rare.

I'm still rather bewildered by all this sudden defense of players though. This is just bizarre. Normally, I'm the one talking about restricting DM powers, yet, suddenly, everyone is coming out of the woodwork to tell me that DM's are just another player at the table, with no more authority or power than anyone else at the table.

This is weird.

Heck, not that long ago, I argued in favor of the idea that if a DM's only criteria for disallowing a player choice during chargen was that he didn't like the idea, not that there was any other reason, but that he simply didn't like the idea, that he should let the player have his way. I was resoundly dogpiled for that. How DARE I suggest that a DM doesn't have absolute authority over his campaign?!?! Yet, now, apparently, every time a player leaves the table, my campaigns end.

...just curious about your views on something.

In the game I run, I am using an optional rule which allows players to spend Character Points to add plausible elements to the scene. What is 'plausible' depends on the general consensus of the group.If this scenario where being run, the cult member could possibly be an element the player could add.

Would you feel that would be a case of a player having power at the table?

(Admittedly, the player is limited in this by points whereas the GM is not, but I'm curious of your views on playing this way.)

Love the idea. I love giving the players more authorial control at the table. It engages the players to a degree that I find simple reaction doesn't.

The old James Bond 007 game let you burn something similar to Action Points to add elements to scenes so long as they fit within the general idea of a Bond movie. So, during a chase scene, a player could have a little old lady walk out into the street to delay the pursuit, or something like that.

I like these ideas. I wish D&D allowed more of them as a baseline. But then, everyone would bitch how D&D is becoming a story game.

 

[Nagol]

<snip>


You assume that the DM leaves.

That's often not the case. The DM can simply say, "I don't want to run this campaign anymore, I'm not liking it, I want to run this other campaign now." And, that's what happens.

Whether you as a player no longer participate in the campaign or not has no bearing on whether the campaign continues. While it is possible for a campaign to switch DM's, it's pretty rare.

I am making no assuption as to whether the current DM remains a member of the play group or not. That is immaterial. What the DM offers is not tied to what the player group decides to do. Any person in the group can offer to start something new. The group decides whether or not to change from current to the new offering. Typically, in my long-term group, multiple people put forward proposals that the group chooses between when campaigns fold or even prior to the campaign ending and the group decides to pursue those proposals that catch its fancy.

I'l use my long-term group's current situation as an example.

I've been running a D&D campaign for about 6 years. I took over from a different GM who was running d20 Modern game. My campaign started as a "fill-in" when the whole group couldn't get together or the DM wasn't prepared to run his game. Within 6 months, it was the main campaign and the d20 campaign shut down. The former DM is at the table still.

My campaign is getting a bit stale. Over the summer, another player suggested running a fill-in Hero-games Traveler-esque campaign to give me a break. That ran for about 5 months and we picked up the D&D game again. The group discussed where to go with the D&D campaign and we agreed to the campaign would run at least as far as the completion of the current adventure. The group expressed interest in wrapping up an overarching "save/damn the world" plotline that could take another 2-3 months.

At the conclusion of that plotline or earlier, depending on PC success, the campiagn will be reviewed. I'm expect to present 4 proposals:

1. Continue the campaign, but with a different social contract as to PC interaction.
2. Press the reset button and start D&D 3.5 at first level. First order of business would be to discuss what optional rules / house rules are in play.
3. Start a AD&D 1e game for nostalgia's sake.
4. Play a modern supernatural investigative campaign I've been working on for a few months.

I expect at least one other in the play group will present a different proposal of what the group will do next. If that proposal is to take over the current D&D campaign and the group accepted, I'd be happy to hand over what notes I have and roll up a character to play in it!

Do I believe I can dictate what the group does? No. Could I produce a group that played whatever I offered? Certainly -- but it wouldn't be this group. Could I dictate what that group did? Not if I changed the parameters of the initial game offering.

 

[howandwhy99]

Well, at the risk of being guilty of a logical fallacy here, there's about a couple of thousand years of political thinkers that would disagree with you.

You insist that any power relationship must be negative and that's entirely on you.

Holding unequal power relationships as negative state of affairs has been one of the reasons for removing DMs from the game. I agree with you it doesn't have to be so, but it is often used to justify game design rationales for such such purposes.

And not all political thinkers think in terms of power. Even thousands of years of historical reasoning can be inaccurate.

Look, break it down.

A DM, at any point in time, may declare any element in the game to be true. If he decides that there is a dragon behind that door, then there's a dragon behind that door. If he decides that the party is attacked by assassins while they're resting at the inn, then they get attacked. If he decides that the mayor wants to be helpful, then the mayor is helpful.

A player may not at any point in time declare any element in the game, beyond his own character, to be true.

YOU add the cult member. Not the player. The player suggests it, but, you are under no obligation to do so. The authority rests solely behind the DM's screen. That authority is placed there by the fact that only the DM may, to use your language, change the code in the game.

The players cannot take any action, beyond simply self contained ones, without the tacit approval of the DM.

Before play begins a DM sets the code, after that point there is no alteration of it on his or her part. So any element cannot be added at any time. A player is the only who can add to that code, not change it. No one is allowed to do that.

As a referee I am setting the initial configuration as it expands outwards, but it must continue to be a repetition of the code. No new elements of my own are included beyond this basic, in the known rules, agreement. The player added the cult member. I don't believe you are saying I thought it up, but I am under obligation by the rules to include it as it wasn't in the code itself. I can neither deny it nor ignore it. It must be included.

If you insist in thinking in terms of authority, then the DM only has the authority to respond to player actions with the consequences of those actions according to the code. The player may attempt any action desired, the results of that action are what the referee responds with.

It is just as in the game Mastermind, but with a far larger code and complexity. The player says what order the pegs are on his first turn and and the referee responds with black and white peg answers. Turns then continue. The referee may not change the code behind the screen. That is against the rules. Players can even go back to past actions, in either game, and see the how each turn followed with honest responses once the code is revealed at game end.

 

[pemerton]

This is weird.

Heck, not that long ago, I argued in favor of the idea that if a DM's only criteria for disallowing a player choice during chargen was that he didn't like the idea, not that there was any other reason, but that he simply didn't like the idea, that he should let the player have his way. I was resoundly dogpiled for that. How DARE I suggest that a DM doesn't have absolute authority over his campaign?!?! Yet, now, apparently, every time a player leaves the table, my campaigns end.

I remember that thread, and share your confusion.

I like these ideas. I wish D&D allowed more of them as a baseline. But then, everyone would bitch how D&D is becoming a story game.

I'm in two minds (and wasn't the one who posted on them - it was Johnny 3D3D). I like it, but I worry a little bit about rationing it - or at least, I think I prefer that the rationing be siloed from other player resources.

An alternative that I like and that 4e supports is that successful skill checks, especially in a skill challenge, allow the players to explain the success not just by reference to their PC's abilities but by specifying something new about the gameworld that facilitated their success. Or even allow the players to specify something about the gameworld that makes a check with a given skill viable in the circumstances. This still falls on the "GM power" side of the picture you're painting. But I think a distinction can be drawn between de jure authority and de facto authority. Even if the GM has de jure authority, at a given table there can be an understanding about when the GM is, in practice, obliged to accede to player requests/suggestions/stipulations.

 

[Lanefan]

If I'm no longer involved because I withdrew, it is completely immaterial that the campaign exists for others because it is ended for me. The only reason it matters if the campaign continues is I know a group of people I may want to interact with are busy during a defined period of time.

But the campaign does continue. From the viewpoint of the game, that's what matters.

Example: I was in a 3e campaign from its founding in 2001 until I dropped out sometime in 2007. That campaign most certainly did not end at that point and in fact will hit its ten-year anniversary in a few months...and it's still relevant to me as well; though I don't play in it I hear the "media coverage" of what happens from those who do, that campaign is included in our annual awards, and so on.

[MENTION=18280]Raven Crowking[/MENTION] - that business with your LA campaign continuing after you left is just amazing!

Lanefan