Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Ahnehnois" data-source="post: 6245765" data-attributes="member: 17106">So, laying down some ground rules again for clarity, I think metagaming is definitionally outside of the game. Any in-game application of out-of-game considerations is outside the bounds of the game. It's not a moral imperative, simply the box we've drawn. Using out of character knowledge in a D&D session is like using your hands to hit a soccer ball. It doesn't make you a bad person, but it is outside of the rules of the game.If you want to do that, play another sport, say handball. Likewise, if a player wants to do something other than inhabit his character, play something else, like Cortex+. To me a strict in-character stance is part of the social contract of D&D, something that is both explicit in the rules, and implicit in the understanding of anyone I've ever met in the community. One thing I've noticed is that I use the term "playing D&D" to refer to any game that has an all-powerful DM and players who are purely responsible for the psychology of their characters, including non-fantasy, non-d20 games. Conversely, if I sit down for a game of the BSG rpg, that's BSG, because the same distinction is not postulated.From what I'm reading, a lot of this balance talk is subsidiary to metagame considerations, which I'm labeling a "bill of rights". For example, some will say that all player characters should be able to contribute in any combat. Or perhaps that all players deserve an equal amount of screen time, or influence over the game world. Or that the player's choices should determine the outcome of their characters' actions. I am not aware of these rights being enumerated in any game material, but some people here seem to think that depriving a player of them is wrong.The thing is, I've internalized some of these norms myself, the type of norms that lead one to think that balance matters. I try to involve all the players equally, and make all the character types good at combat, and make their choices matter, et cetera, et cetera. And the more I'm DMing, the more I find that this is my mistake. Whenever I violate those implicit rights, the game goes to new and unexpected territory, and it's usually good. And I realize that I was honoring some abstract principle that was never established mutually, that no one cares about in my group but me, and which has forced my thinking inside of a box of "fair play" that serves no purpose.Example: in the current game I'm running (CoC, which is not D&D but does fall under that broad envelope I described above of carrying the same social contract), I've got three characters, one budding schoolteacher, one disabled soldier trying to make a new career in psychology, and one doctor loaded to the teeth with spells. Balanced? Not remotely. One character gets a terminal diagnosis, one gets a mysterious voice in his head that no one else can hear, and the third is ostensibly supposed to come in and fix one or both of these things. Fair? Not remotely. Equal opportunity for all players to contribute? No. One spends her time doped up in a hospital, the other is the protagonist, and the other character doesn't exist until they call on him as a last resort after almost two full sessions. Characters' choices determining the outcome of their actions? Nope. Not remotely. But are we experiencing what it's like to get cancer? Are we playing out the emotional horrors? Are we intrigued by the supernatural elements? Are we eagerly awaiting the final outcome? Yes, absolutely. This game can't happen with the player entitlement crowd (AFAICT).But that's not D&D you say. And yet, I'm taken back to a D&D game I ran a couple of years ago. Characters: one largely non-combatant druid, one evoker trying to open a magic shop, and one ranger working as a courier. Balanced? I doubt it. (The ranger pretty much dominated mechanically). And before the game, I decided that at the climax of the campaign, one character would be a McGuffin, another character would have to sacrifice his life for all eternity to save said McGuffin, and the third would fulfill an ancient prophecy and transcend to fairy land. Fair? Nope. Players in control of their characters' outcomes? Nope. But nonetheless, it all worked, they all enjoyed it, and every session was full of new and unexpected things. Again, I seem to have violated some of those rights billed above.To me, the notion of player entitlement places a stranglehold on the DM, asking him to both run an entire world but also to cater to the player characters because they are special snowflakes. Balance, not just between classes, but balanced encounters, balanced character abilities, balanced spotlight time, etc. is a symptom of a disease that prevents the DM from exploring a full range of story possibilities, many of which will stomp all over the rights implicit above. I'm not a fan.Not only do I think that a black and white distinction between DM and player is the norm, I also think it always will be, because empowering the players creates gray areas over who is responsible for what. The only way to avoid these gray areas is to give one person ultimate authority over everything, and then let him decide how he wants to exercise or delegate that authority. I also think a fundamentally "unbalanced" approach that treats things that are different in reality (or in fiction) as also being different in the game, is always going to be the norm. The two go hand in hand.This isn't to say that another game that doesn't have that assumption is bad. Just fundamentally different. If the DM isn't responsible for everything, than players being empowered doesn't detract from his efforts. I like the idea of experimenting in those realms on occasion. I'd do it more often if I could sell the players on it. To me, pure in-character roleplaying is always going to be soccer, the sport of the world, and metagame/storygaming/indie gaming/etc. is always going to be handball, an alternative, niche option. I don't think taking D&D into the storygaming realm makes any more sense than association football letting the field players use their hands now and then. If you're going to do player entitlement, build a new game for it. If you want to say 4e is that game, go ahead, though I suspect there's better out there (looking forward to the metagame-laced Firefly rpg coming out myself).One thing I've noticed about DMing is that it's really hard. Being responsible for every aspect of the game is quite a load. I'm usually quite exhausted after a session of D&D, and there's a distinctive "D&D headache" that I only get after sessions. To people who aren't improvisers like me, preparation can be a significant load as well.So on some level, sharing the load makes perfect sense. If the game imposes a set of metagame strictures that match your goals, then you don't have to impose them, which is easier for you, and anyone else who shares your goals. If players assume a larger narrative responsibility during play, you have more time to stop and get a drink.But beyond that, I also think that there's a lot of satisfaction to being a player, and as a DM I miss out on some of that. By having control of everything, I have no sense of stakes. Nothing happens without my approval. If I let the game run very passively, play will absolutely have an emergent nature, but I always have a sense of control. The DM isn't roleplaying. I also lose the satisfaction of achievement that comes from accomplishing some goal in a scenario external to myself. As a player, overcoming a challenge is fun. As a DM, I don't get that.But if the DM cedes some of his responsibility, his role becomes more like that of a player. For example, if I establish that I will never "cheat" a dice outcome and will instead leave that to the player's rolls and perhaps some form of action points, then when I chuck a death effect at a PC, I am discovering at the same time they do whether the character lives or dies, and if it's not the outcome I personally want, I have to live with it. This creates a somewhat unhinged, but intriguing experience.So for me, I DM, but I also want to play now and then because the experience is different. Perhaps you've instead created a role that "balances" (so to speak) your role as being somewhere in between a DM and a player, creating an experience for yourself that is somewhere between being the Master of the game and being a lowly PC who plays the hand he's dealt. And perhaps because you have that mixed experience, you don't have to do what I do, switch back and forth between player and DM to be satisfied, and you don't get that DM burnout that occasions a thread on ENW periodically.So don't get me wrong, I see considerable advantages to some forms of "player entitlement" along with the disadvantages I talked about above. What I don't see is why any form of it should be legislated into my campaign.I actually think that "player entitlement" is, somewhat counterintuitively, bad for the players more so than the DM, as they lose some of their in-character perspective and have to work more and think more about things that are not that. And that's very much what I've found when experimenting with plot points and class balance and experience points and other metagame things. I, the DM, am always the one pushing these boundaries, and the players are the ones who are pushing back.</blockquote>

Verification