Why I don't GM by the nose

[Raven Crowking]

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?

Sure it can. Identity doesn't follow conservation laws.

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.

And, yet, nothing you have written yet has answered the objections I raised.

The ruleset codifies the expected table rules; the table rules are where the GM actually gains power. All of the powers the GM gains are explicitly there to allow the GM to empower the players.

End of story.


RC

 

[howandwhy99]

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.

Um, how is that? Because they are players they engage within the scope of a character. How is this not engaging as a player directly? That's all it is.

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.

A referee is not a player, but the one making judgments of the players actions. He doesn't engage in the game world at all. He relates it.

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.

A DM may change things, but a referee never would. Only modern day RPGs specifically allow this. You're reading things into past documents which aren't there.

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.

AD&D had some bad advice, as did BD&D. That was a mistake on the designers part. But the rules aren't rules, they are guidelines for creating your own code. The guidelines as published are not mandatory (though AD&D tried to make them so with "real D&D" and all).

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.

Clearly I don't agree with these most people. 3.0 has rule zero where the others did not. That's hardly taking power away. In fact, I'd say it is questionably even a game with such a rule.

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.

Please refrain from demanding any one else accept your absolute truths. Religion is banned on these boards.

The referee never plays a character or the game, only the players do that. The guy behind the screen sets the code prior to play and judges the player's actions, clarifying when necessary. The players are the only ones who take actions in the game. The ref simply relays results. He cannot do what the players do. Imagine playing Mastermind against yourself, it's ridiculous.

 

[Hussar]

So, in your mind, the DM or referee, is simply a computer passively reacting to whatever input the players put forward?

But, this:

A DM may change things, but a referee never would. Only modern day RPGs specifically allow this. You're reading things into past documents which aren't there.

and this:

AD&D had some bad advice, as did BD&D. That was a mistake on the designers part. But the rules aren't rules, they are guidelines for creating your own code. The guidelines as published are not mandatory (though AD&D tried to make them so with "real D&D" and all).

are specifically at odds with eachother. Rule 0 most certainly DID exist in every edition of D&D. It's in the first few pages of every single DMG save possibly the 4e one, which, while it doesn't specifically say that there are no rules, only guidelines, still allows a great deal of flex for what the DM can do.

Rule 0 simply states that all rules are guidelines. That's what Rule 0 IS. Since you admit that all rules are guidelines is an element of all versions of D&D, therefore, all versions of D&D have Rule 0.

The eleven elements I listed above are not edition dependent. A DM is granted that authority in EVERY edition.

Ok, we're not going to agree on this. You have a definition of role playing game that is at odds with pretty much any accepted definition and now you're trying to argue based on a definition that only you hold. This is not going to go anywhere. Let's just agree to disagree.

 

[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.

I don't care about the viewpoint of someone - let's say me - who has left. The only viewpoint that matters as to whether the campaign still exists is that of the campaign itself. Is the campaign still going? Yes? Then it's still going.

Whether I'm still in it or not.

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.

It'd be a recordkeeper's nightmare and the headache to end all headaches for both DMs involved, but the split campaigns *could* be considered to be one, with actions and events from one potentially affecting the other.

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.

How can I explain that a campaign is more than just you-as-player?

While you're out the campaign might not exist *for you*, but from a broader viewpoint (i.e. that of the campaign itself) it does still exist as long as others remain to play and-or DM it.

Lanefan

 

[Lanefan]

A referee is not a player, but the one making judgments of the players actions. He doesn't engage in the game world at all. He relates it.

A DM may change things, but a referee never would. Only modern day RPGs specifically allow this. You're reading things into past documents which aren't there.

To put this in programming terms, if I'm reading you right you're saying a DM writes the code and then a referee processes it.

Yet when I sit behind the screen I'm both at once.

AD&D had some bad advice, as did BD&D. That was a mistake on the designers part. But the rules aren't rules, they are guidelines for creating your own code. The guidelines as published are not mandatory (though AD&D tried to make them so with "real D&D" and all).

Clearly I don't agree with these most people. 3.0 has rule zero where the others did not. That's hardly taking power away. In fact, I'd say it is questionably even a game with such a rule.

4e has page 42.

Also, just because a designer wrote something in a book doesn't make it true, or correct, or anything other than one person's idea as to how something should work. You as DM have the power to change what's written to suit your own sensibilities, and you as referee have the power to process it any old way you like.

And as both you have the power to do either of these things at any time - including on the fly in mid-session - provided you keep in mind that with power comes responsibility, in this case being to make sure your changes are for the betterment of the game you're playing and have been thought through far enough to forsee and correct any potential headaches they may cause.

In other news, you said this...

The referee never plays a character or the game, only the players do that. The guy behind the screen sets the code prior to play and judges the player's actions, clarifying when necessary. The players are the only ones who take actions in the game. The ref simply relays results. He cannot do what the players do. Imagine playing Mastermind against yourself, it's ridiculous.

...immediately after saying this:

Please refrain from demanding any one else accept your absolute truths. Religion is banned on these boards.

The irony is not lost on me.

D+D is not Mastermind, and in D+D the "referee" can in many ways take actions; either through non-party NPCs, in-party NPCs, game-world events, or whatever. In D+D the hidden information *can* change as you go along, sometimes as a direct result of player actions whether intentional or not. And the players can sometimes change the rules or parameters - to continue the Mastermind analogy, they could force 5 pegs into 4 holes - and the DM has to be able to roll with it.

A computer - which is what your idea of a referee reminds me of - can't do that.

Lanefan

 

[howandwhy99]

snip....are specifically at odds with eachother. Rule 0 most certainly DID exist in every edition of D&D. It's in the first few pages of every single DMG save possibly the 4e one, which, while it doesn't specifically say that there are no rules, only guidelines, still allows a great deal of flex for what the DM can do.

Rule 0 simply states that all rules are guidelines. That's what Rule 0 IS. Since you admit that all rules are guidelines is an element of all versions of D&D, therefore, all versions of D&D have Rule 0.

Not all rules are guidelines, just the vast majority of "rules" ever published and meant to be hidden behind the screen. ..which makes them not rules at all, social agreements amongst players. Neither is rule zero in every game of D&D, it is a 3.0 publishing term.

The eleven elements I listed above are not edition dependent. A DM is granted that authority in EVERY edition.

Ok, we're not going to agree on this. You have a definition of role playing game that is at odds with pretty much any accepted definition and now you're trying to argue based on a definition that only you hold. This is not going to go anywhere. Let's just agree to disagree.

It's the understood definition of role playing for multiple decades up through the early eighties. Your eleven elements are hardly without dispute and attempting to single out my opinion as abnormal is unappreciated. But I will agree to disagree.

To put this in programming terms, if I'm reading you right you're saying a DM writes the code and then a referee processes it.

Yet when I sit behind the screen I'm both at once.

4e has page 42.

Yes, page 42 is a broken rule in any game. Think if a referee in football could add 5-10 yards to any play without explanation. I like one player or team, so they always get +2, not another so they always get -2. This has been pointed out as poor game design since the game was published.

The DM sets the code before play, but not the objective or scope. They then referee as the interpreter of player's responses within that scope once play begins. These are rules known to all players and not not uncommon in D&D play prior to the 90's. The DMs at the time may not have known why they were running the game as such, but it's why there is a DM shield.

Also, just because a designer wrote something in a book doesn't make it true, or correct, or anything other than one person's idea as to how something should work. You as DM have the power to change what's written to suit your own sensibilities, and you as referee have the power to process it any old way you like.

This isn't about true in the world other than consistent in the brain of the referee. It's the expression of the repetition of a pattern. I disagree the DM has the so-called authority to change that code once play begins.

In other news, you said this...
...immediately after saying this:The irony is not lost on me.

D+D is not Mastermind, and in D+D the "referee" can in many ways take actions; either through non-party NPCs, in-party NPCs, game-world events, or whatever. In D+D the hidden information *can* change as you go along, sometimes as a direct result of player actions whether intentional or not. And the players can sometimes change the rules or parameters - to continue the Mastermind analogy, they could force 5 pegs into 4 holes - and the DM has to be able to roll with it.

A computer - which is what your idea of a referee reminds me of - can't do that.

Lanefan

A person isn't as simplistic as any computer I've heard of. But a DM can take in information irrelevant to the game and incorporate that into it. That is the "irrelevant, so yes" rule. I disagree D&D is not a play on the game Mastermind. That's the type of game it was designed to be.

The irony of defending a disputed opinion as appearing zealous isn't lost on me either. I'm open to other ideas. I hold many opposing ones and am comfortable with it. This isn't a discussion to say "this is THE way", only one option. I don't think any are necessarily wrong, but I understand others as saying this particular point of view is.

 

[pemerton]

Yes, page 42 is a broken rule in any game. Think if a referee in football could add 5-10 yards to any play without explanation. I like one player or team, so they always get +2, not another so they always get -2.

Maybe the way I play D&D doesn't count as a game (by your criteria), but in my view page 42 is crucial to making 4e a successful RPG. It gives the GM the tools to create challenges and adjudicate action resolution without worrying about challenges being too hard or too easy to generate interesting play. (It is the functional equivalent, in 4e, to the pass/fail cycle in HeroQuest). It makes open-ended scene framing possible, by making improvisaiton of game elements and of action resolution easy.

As for +2/-2 without explanation - at least at my table, the explanation will be given. Sometimes it will be an ingame explanation, sometimes a metagame explanation. The second sort of explanation is, perhaps, at odds with "referee as code applier", but that's not how I approach GMing. (As my posts on this and similar threads have made pretty clear, I hope.)

 

[Lanefan]

... in my view page 42 is crucial to making 4e a successful RPG ...

I'll take it a step further:

Page 42's equivalent in any RPG is crucial to making it a successful RPG.

While it may be possible (though utterly impractical) to pre-program a rule or outcome for every conceivable action or combination of actions, it is impossible to pre-program for those actions deemed inconceivable by the designers yet thought of by the players and-or DM in reasonable context. That's where rules become guidelines, DMs make stuff up on the fly, and the game goes on.

Lan-"rule structures work better when they can bend before they break"-efan

 

[Sorrowdusk]

What is this page 42 you all speak of?
In a nutshell, what exactly is this rule?

Maybe the way I play D&D doesn't count as a game (by your criteria), but in my view page 42 is crucial to making 4e a successful RPG. It gives the GM the tools to create challenges and adjudicate action resolution without worrying about challenges being too hard or too easy to generate interesting play. (It is the functional equivalent, in 4e, to the pass/fail cycle in HeroQuest). It makes open-ended scene framing possible, by making improvisaiton of game elements and of action resolution easy.

As for +2/-2 without explanation - at least at my table, the explanation will be given. Sometimes it will be an ingame explanation, sometimes a metagame explanation. The second sort of explanation is, perhaps, at odds with "referee as code applier", but that's not how I approach GMing. (As my posts on this and similar threads have made pretty clear, I hope.)

 

[steenan]

Page 42's equivalent in any RPG is crucial to making it a successful RPG.

I disagree.
This kind of rule is nearly necessary in each game where the system simulates the setting, because you cannot predict and describe everything what could happen in game and you have to make some simplifications.

It is not necessary in games with abstract systems. Even more: this kind of fuzziness is actively detrimental in many cases. Dogs in the Vineyard and Polaris are perfect examples of games that are playable by RAW and have nothing similar to "page 42" or "rule 0".