Why I don't GM by the nose

[Nagol]

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

Sure, others may continue playing in the campaign, but it is over and complete so far as those who left. Sort of a relative viewpoint thing.

Let's assume RC decided to continue his campaign once he reached his new city. Two years later he hears that his old group continued the campaign. But that can't be right can it? The campaigns almost certainly went in different directions with different DMs, different notes, and different players. How could both claim to be continuing the same campaign? Relative viewpoint.

RC can claim to continue the campaign because he was involved and is running the same setting with the same history with new PCs.

The old group can claim to continue because they were involved and are running a similar setting with the same known history with original PCs.

If I have a favourite character that I run in campaign A and then I leave campaign, the fate of the character after I leave is not meaningful to me. If campaign B picks up and allows me to bring in my character, I'll bring it in as it was when I last played it regardless of what may have happened in campaign A. To me, the campaign existed only so long as my involvement. It may have existed prior and it may exist after for others, but it didn't impinge my life save for when I was involved.

The DM have no authority other than to direct his own time and accept/limit the involvement of others with that time. If he offers to run a particular campaign, that's nice and all, but the group and the individual players must decide if to participate.

 

[Nagol]

I remember that thread, and share your confusion.

I thinlk part of the confusion comes from assigning authority to the DM rather than the group.

The prospective DM issues a proposal for a game to the group. That proposal can be as restrictive as suits his fancy. A group of players forms that wants to participate in activity described by the proposal.

If a member wants something outside the proposal, the DM is certainly in the right to refuse that request as that's not what the gorup agreed to accept.

 

[Hussar]

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.

Ok, this is where we part company I think.

For one, the DM in D&D is specifically empowered to change any element of the game he sees fit. That's the basic definition of Rule 0. Rule 0 states that all rules are subject to the DM. So, in this specific case, you are actually factually wrong. The DM is empowered by the ruleset to have the ability to change the ruleset at any point in time.

Ok, in the attempt to wrap up my involvement in this thread, which is pretty much turning into semantics, I present:

Hussar's Ten Examples of Where DM's have More Power at the Table than Players

1. The Dm creates the world and controls all details within that world other than what the player's characters themselves.

2. The DM may, at any point in time, lie to the players and give them incorrect information. In other words, the DM may present red herrings.

3. If the DM stands up from the table to go to the bathroom, play stops. Players may go to the bathroom at any time.

4. A DM is under no obligation to follow the rules when creating scenarios and is actually encouraged to break rules (particularly character generation rules) when creating scenarios.

5. A DM is under no obligation to show his die rolls. 30 years of DM screen sales proves that.

6. The DM is specifically empowered by the ruleset to change any die roll result he sees fit. ((see the AD&D treasure generation rules for example)).

7. The DM is typically granted the authority to eject any player from the table.

8. The DM may change and/or ignore rules at any point in time.

9. A DM may veto any player chargen choice. Players may not veto DM choices during scenario creation.

10. Any element which is added to the game during play can only be added with the DM's explicit approval.

11. (See, I have the power, I can break my own rules ) No player action may be taken without the DM's permission, beyond purely mental actions I suppose which have no impact on the game world. A player can't even open a door without the DM's tacit permission.

So, this is my list of how DM's have more power and/or authority at the gaming table. I would strongly resist any notion of removing the DM from an RPG. I have zero problem with the DM having this authority, and, I tried to present my list in such a way as to not give any opinion as to whether these powers are a good idea or not.

But, AFAIC, every one of the above is true.

 

[howandwhy99]

Ok, this is where we part company I think.

Okay. I don't see any point in discussing any further either. I don't agree with a lot of your post, but that's as it is. Rule 0 is 3.0, but plenty of bad advice was in 2E and some in 1E. I just game differently. Those aren't my rules and I wouldn't care to game under them myself. But to each their own.

 

[Hussar]

Hang on H&W. Rule 0 isn't just 3e. It's in every version of D&D except 4e. And, I do believe it exists in spirit in the rules in 4e as well. After all, 4e is pretty fast and loose with letting the DM define pretty much everything about the game.

 

[pemerton]

1. The Dm creates the world and controls all details within that world other than what the player's characters themselves.

3. If the DM stands up from the table to go to the bathroom, play stops. Players may go to the bathroom at any time.

4. A DM is under no obligation to follow the rules when creating scenarios and is actually encouraged to break rules (particularly character generation rules) when creating scenarios.

6. The DM is specifically empowered by the ruleset to change any die roll result he sees fit. ((see the AD&D treasure generation rules for example)).

7. The DM is typically granted the authority to eject any player from the table.

8. The DM may change and/or ignore rules at any point in time.

9. A DM may veto any player chargen choice. Players may not veto DM choices during scenario creation.

10. Any element which is added to the game during play can only be added with the DM's explicit approval.

11. No player action may be taken without the DM's permission, beyond purely mental actions I suppose which have no impact on the game world. A player can't even open a door without the DM's tacit permission.

At my table :

(3) does not apply fully, as the players may discuss things among themselves, their PCs may make plans, swap items etc. But action resolution involving NPCs and other gameworld elements that are not under PC control can't happen when I'm not there.

(4) does not apply fully - I take it that I am obliged to follow the 4e encounter-building guidelines. This is the implicity guarantee my players have that the challenges presented are ones that they can meet via their PCs. That said, when it comes to terrain effects and hazards 4e is pretty liberal. So these constraints are mostly relevant to overall encounter levels and the specification of the combat stats and DCs of individual elements that make up encounters.

(6) does not apply - I don't change die rolls for action resolution.

(7) does not apply. New members come into the group via group consensus. I don't remember ever having evicted anyone, but I think that also would have to be via consensus.

(8) does not apply fully - there can be minor house ruling, and as GM I have the greater say and tend to initiate such things more often, but player input counts and there can be (and from time to time has been) negotiation.

(9) does not apply.

(11) does not apply fully. GM permission is required to take actions outside the given mechanical framework of one of each sort of action per turn (subject to conditions like dazed). But as GM I am obliged to follow the guidelines given on p42 of the DMG and its descendants (like the improvisation notes in the RC). And the players know this, and declare actions for their PCs in light of it. The actual DCs and effects of non-standard actions tend to be negotiated between me and the players.​

So the GM has more power, but not (I think) total power. And there is also the distinction between de jure and de facto authority I mentioned above, which is relevant to (1) and (10) in your list.

 

[Hussar]

But note Pemerton. I didn't say that the DM always has to do these things. I said that a DM COULD do any or all of these things. For example, in 6, you say you don't change die rolls. And that's totally your prerogative.

But you could. The rules specifically empower you to do so. Heck, in 1e, the rules actually encouraged you to do so if you rolled wonky stuff on the treasure generation tables.

Whether or not you specifically take advantage of these things is irrelavent. You are empowered to do so by the rules of the game. Heck, it's because you are empowered by the rules, that you can choose NOT to do these things. However, at no point in time can a player do ANY of those things. The rules do not grant the player the choice of applying these elements or not.

But, I do COMPLETELY agree with your final statement. I never said that the DM has total power. Just the lion's share of it. Which is exactly the point I've been trying to make all the way along. This all got started because BOTE talked about the idea that players have equivalent power/authority at the game table. HowandWhy has also argued that power/authority is equal.

I've agreed that it's not a case where the DM is dictating everything to the players. That would suck. But, it is a case where the DM holds pretty much most of the power at the table. At least, IMO.

Let's put it in the most basic way I can. At your table, can the following interaction occur:

DM: There is a door in front of you.
Player: I open the door and inside there is a 15 by 20 foot room with a chest and a bed against one wall.

 

[howandwhy99]

Hang on H&W. Rule 0 isn't just 3e. It's in every version of D&D except 4e. And, I do believe it exists in spirit in the rules in 4e as well. After all, 4e is pretty fast and loose with letting the DM define pretty much everything about the game.

As I said, I disagree. I don't agree with some of the advice in 1E, almost all in 2E and in 3.0 Rule Zero becomes blatant. But the original game was written as role playing was understood during those years. Which is why it was written with a vast amount of "rules" and designed as a pattern finding game. Rule zero doesn't apply here, though I'll admit it was not clearly indicated.

One thing I think we can both agree on is the need for good technical writing for most of the hobby's publishing history.

HowandWhy has also argued that power/authority is equal.

This may be why we are not communicating clearly with each other. My point of view is power is a mindset, a construction within our brains. A code breaking game isn't about power over who can add what, but revealing an underlying order through honest repetition. Power doesn't come into it.

At my table the players do not play omnipotent gods, but finite sentient beings more or less within the scope of human ability. So saying what is beyond the door is their option, but that isn't necessarily what will be there. Unless you believe we always create our world rather than receive it through our senses?

 

[pemerton]

Hussar, answer to your last question: no, unless the room is the player's PC's house/hide-out/whatever, which the player has introduced into the game via PC backstory.

That is, in my game the GM has overwhelming (although not total) backstory authority. This goes to item (1) in your list.

The 4e rules on fudging dice (item (6) on your list) are a bit vaguely worded (pp 18, 113 of DM's book in the Essentials kit, pp 15, 31 of the DMG) but do suggest the GM enjoys a prerogative to suspend the action resolution rules for monsters/NPCs in the players' favour in extreme circumstances.

But there is no suggestion that the GM should suspend the rules to hurt the players - rather, the encounter can be altered (ie made tougher) on the fly, either by adjusting the monster's/NPC's stats or adding new monsters/NPCs to the encounter (DM's book p 113, DMG p 31). This falls under your item (4) - like I said, 4e has pretty flexible encounter design guidelines, so sticking do them doesn't place a lot of limits on the GM (but it does place some - if you make a monster tougher, for example, or introduce new foes, then you may be changing the level of the enemy/encounter and therefore changing the XP reward to which the players are entitled).

I agree with your items (2) and (5). They are intrinsic to D&D, as a pretty traditional RPG.

I think (7) and (8) are probably the most controversial on your list. Item (7) isn't stated in any 4e rulebook that I can think of, and isn't something that's ever been true of my gaming table. As to (8), Essentials doesn't seem to discuss it. The DMG does, though, on page 189:

Think carefully about the reason for changing or adding a rule. Are you reacting to a persistent problem in your campaign, or to one specific incident? Isolated problems might be better handled in other ways. More important, do the other players agree to the need for a change? You have the authority to do whatever you want with the game, but your efforts won’t help if you have no group.​

There's no denying that that runs your way!

 

[Hussar]

HowandWhy - essentially we're saying the same thing. The players at your table can only engage your game world through their character. At no point can they engage your game world as a player directly.

However, the DM, at any and all points in time, engages the game world directly. He is the omnipotent player in the game world. He declares all elements beyond about 2 inches from each character. The players may engage those elements as they see fit.

But, your Mastermind analogy breaks down. In Mastermind, the Mastermind may not change the code once it is set. Once he places the pegs in the holes, he may not change anything and he must tell the truth to the player. A DM, OTOH, can move the pegs at any point in time, can substitute different colors, even those beyond the original four colors and can lie to the players.

The rules of an RPG specifically allow this.

I think it's absolutely laughable that you're trying to pin this on a 3e mindset that rule 0 wasn't codified or obvious in earlier editions. Heck, even Basic D&D specifically tells you that there are no rules, only guidelines. And that's a point that's repeated in the AD&D DMG as well.

Heck, most people argue that 3e takes power away from the DM. That the DM in earlier editions had even more power over the game than he does in 3e.

You can deny that there is any balance of power at a gaming table all you like H&W, but that doesn't make it true. The DM can do everything a player can do and more. The reverse is not true. There are things the DM has the authority to do that the player does not.

Pemerton - the list I made was half tongue in cheek, but it does make the point rather strongly. Don't get too wrapped up in the individual examples, but, rather look at it as a whole. The DM controls most of the game.