Why we like plot: Our Job as DMs

[Ariosto]

So how do we get that in a game? The more 'old school' style RPG says the way to get there is to focus on the outgunned and outnumbered.

Total baloney!

Bruce Willis has as much to do with the design of 'old school' RPGs as Michael Jackson has to do with Tchaikovsky's composition for the Liturgy of Saint John Chrysostom.

 

[AverageCitizen]

Whatever rocks your boat, baby!

However, if you try to convince the rest of us that the purpose of a game of Chess is to make sure that White always gets Black in check mate, then you're being absurd. Bringing that attitude to a normal Chess match is obnoxious.

There is a conventional understanding, and that serves an eminently practical purpose. It is the same with Dungeons & Dragons as with Bunnies & Burrows or Axis & Allies, Dogs in the Vineyard or My Life With Master, Snit Stomping or Scrabble.

You're a cool guy.

So, the idea isn't to convince people to change the way they game, I'm just hoping to help people discover a potentially overlooked source of satisfaction. I am not saying you should game this way, I'm saying there is a good chance you already do, and most people probably at least lightly implement some of these concepts. So consider my thoughts as a possible explanation of why you game the way you do. If it doesn't fit, thats fine, but I am suggesting that if you really think about what brings you and your players satisfaction at its most basic level it [edit: or at least a big part of it] will probably be something like what I am describing. If we consciously acknowledge it we might be able to make it better.

Unrelated: What exactly is the conventional understanding about DnD?

 

[Ariosto]

Unrelated: What exactly is the conventional understanding about DnD?

Actually related: "Books are Books, Games are Games" (title of a Sorcerer's Scroll column in Dragon 30 years ago).

The DM (a.k.a. Judge or Referee) must not take sides. The DM is not playing for or against the players but presenting a challenge to their skills. Some characters survive, succeed and grow more powerful; other "pawns" perish, but there is normally no end point at which players have "won" or "lost". (A tournament obviously is a bit different.)

 

[AverageCitizen]

Actually related: "Books are Books, Games are Games" (title of a Sorcerer's Scroll column in Dragon 30 years ago).

The DM (a.k.a. Judge or Referee) must not take sides. The DM is not playing for or against the players but presenting a challenge to their skills. Some characters survive, succeed and grow more powerful; other "pawns" perish, but there is normally no end point at which players have "won" or "lost". (A tournament obviously is a bit different.)

I think you were right and there are some things are that fundamentally different about our games. Still I see exactly what you mean about challenging the players, so maybe its more of a difference in priorities than mutually exclusive styles.

I do not agree with the Books are Books, Games are Games statement. DnD is a game, but it also something very much more than a game. I believe that some of the inherent assumptions that have existed in RPGs from the beginning are unnecessary and hold us back. The GM is only a referee in a periphery sense. I keep the rules and challenge the players because it makes the game more fun, not because I'm adhering to an ideal of objectivity.

 

[Umbran]

There is a conventional understanding, and that serves an eminently practical purpose. It is the same with Dungeons & Dragons as with Bunnies & Burrows or Axis & Allies, Dogs in the Vineyard or My Life With Master, Snit Stomping or Scrabble.

I am not at all sure the conventional wisdom has it that D&D and B&B are the same as Scrabble, Snit Stomping, or Axis and Allies.

If you look around at the occasional thread trying to define what an RPG is, this question usually comes up - are RPGs "games". The answer is that it depends upon your definition of "game". Classic, strict games have specific win conditions, and limited durations. RPGs don't. You might consider any tactical engagement to have a win condition of survive", but the game as a whole cannot be won or lost, per se, especially if you are playing sandbox-style. RPGs generally only fit "game" in a slightly more loose definition.

 

[Joseph Rossow]

This certainly is an interesting argument. Here's my 2 cents.

1. I disagree with the OP on the job of the DM. A DM's job is to entertain.

2. Allow me to quote one of the posts...

disassociate 'character death' and 'defeat'

That, right there, is exceptionally important. Just because a player's character isn't having fun doesn't mean the player isn't having fun, nor is one a requisite for the other.

3. I agree that story is essential. But DM's simply achieve this by enforcing consequences upon actions.

"You went in and stole the Goblin King's Hoard out from under his nose? He raises an army and burns down the village to get it back."

"You seduce the evil sorceress to get her to remove a curse? Now she wants to take you on a vacation... in the Abyss."

So long as the chain of consequences and actions remains rational and real, a story will always be produced from a game.

 

[Herobizkit]

Unrelated: What exactly is the conventional understanding about DnD?

It's the same understanding that you see thrown around here quite often: DnD is about killing things and taking their stuff.

If you never run a single combat in DnD, some may argue that you're Missing The Point. If you never award XP and/or allow the characters to advance in level, that's fine, too - but you'll be sure at some point that they will want to improve. How one measures success and improvement determines how much fun one ends up having.

For example, take myself and my roommate. We have alternately played and DM'd solo campaigns for over a decade.

As a player:
* For him, he ALWAYS wants to amass a huge treasure hoard, then use said hoard to create a stronghold, attract followers, and make a new city/town/fort/kingdom to rule.
* For myself, I always want my characters to learn new abilities, try new character concepts, and finesse "the rules" to create interesting and (hopefully) unique heroes.

As a DM:
* For him, he likes to create epic plots. worlds with epic histories spanning ver ten thousand years. He uses his same campaign world each time, which has an epic history spanning over ten thousand game years. I try to add my own personal flair with each new character I make.
* For me, I like the creative process, but I run each game as if it were its own separate TV serial. One character, one area, one group of "supporting cast", and once we finish that campaign, I'm off for a new setting/concept/game system to try.

He's great at planning and details, while I'm great at off-the-cuff DMing. He's a superb tactician; I'm a superb role-player.
If we were one DM, we'd be awesome. *lolz*
But we're not.

And so, we each have to make some concessions if we are to enjoy each other's DMing and play style. I think the same applies to every set of DM and players out there; once each knows what is "fun" for the other, hilarity can ensue and everyone has a good time.

 

[Ariosto]

Umbran, your response goes off at such a strange tangent that I reckon I must have been terribly unclear!

The "it" I meant as the same is simply the existence of a commonly agreed upon meaning of the term. There may be a game in which one gets a Triple Word Score for Breaking a Square with a Royal Flush and Snake Eyes in a Bolotomus, but it would probably be unhelpful to advertise it as "Dungeons & Dragons".

"Classic, strict games" is obviously a narrower category than "games". Here's what I mean:

Non-game: a puzzle with a single optimal solution, the discovery of which makes further "play" pointless.

Non-game: an entertainment in which the "player" has no significant choices, making the illusory "play" pointless.

Finitude is not necessary. That Diplomacy in practice tends to have an end and a winner and losers is an "accident". In an "ideally" played game, the other players would always team up to prevent someone from attaining the victory conditions.

Nor is it an incomprehensible leap from the open-ended nature of "rules for (non-fantastic) medieval wargames campaigns" to Dungeons & Dragons. Indeed it was so small that Gygax and Arneson considered it unnecessary to mention any difference in the original D&D rules books.

Neither did they make any mention of "plot"!

Among the other games Gygax designed was one he called Dragon Chess. It is no less fine and fun a game for not having been adopted as the official rules set of the United States Chess Federation.

 

[Korgoth]

As the GM, my job is to make is to make sure that when the Batman takes down the Joker, it's because he earned it, not because his name is on the cover. If you want your wildest fantasies to come true, write some fan fic.

You must spread some Experience Points around before giving it to pawsplay again.

 

[the Jester]

Yeah sorry about that. I don't mean anything by it. For some people its just a game, but for some people its a game + some other interesting stuff. That's all I'm suggesting here.

I don't know if you realize this, but you're still denigrating other playstyles by suggesting that they are "just a game" while yours is "just a game + some other interesting stuff". You can have all that extra interesting stuff without a player-centric game.

Thats cool. And you're right, this is just me. I get a kick out of fulfilling the players. Still I think you may be missing what I mean by validate. Most of what GMs do is validation. We make them earn it so that it means more.

Still I am not sure if that is your qualm so I am just guessing here. I'd be interested in hearing more about why you disagree.

Well, to clarify, I definitely want the players in my game to enjoy the game- that's why they keep coming back for more- but I don't think entertaining the players is at the top of my duties as dm. It's on the list, but there are many more important aspects to my game (and, again, this is all about playstyle preference).

For instance, I think running a consistent game is more important than stroking the players. So is building a consistent milieu. So is having my npcs and monsters act appropriate to their intelligence- the classic example of a mystery adventure where the Int 25 villain makes tons of stupid mistakes satisfies the players, because it makes it easy for them to win, but I find it terribly dissatisfying, since an Int 25 villain wouldn't make those mistakes. If I want a villain to act dumb, I make sure the villain actually is done- or that there is another reason for them to act that way (emotional entanglements, etc).

I do not agree with the Books are Books, Games are Games statement. DnD is a game, but it also something very much more than a game. I believe that some of the inherent assumptions that have existed in RPGs from the beginning are unnecessary and hold us back. The GM is only a referee in a periphery sense. I keep the rules and challenge the players because it makes the game more fun, not because I'm adhering to an ideal of objectivity.

Again, playstyle choice. DnD is indeed "just a game"- but, run and played right, it's a game that includes all kinds of crazy elements of acting, storytelling, etc. I think most players that have come to gaming within a group that coddles the players would be shocked at games like mine, and that is okay. Players that fit well with my style of game would be bored to death in a campaign where nobody ever dies, or where everything evolves to match the level of the party regardless of what level it was six game months ago. Dms that fudge the dice are fine for a certain style of game, but I roll almost all my dice in the open and let the chips fall where they may. Personally, a non-objective dm really sours me on a campaign very quickly.

I think trying to claim the "more than just a game" label for your playstyle really implies a disdain for the way others play the game. I am pretty sure that isn't your intent, but that is how you are coming across to me.

I'm not saying one style is "better" than the other- just that I have a strong preference for one over the other, and my players are perfectly happy to play my style of game. Hell, I almost always have a 'waiting list' of potential players longer than the 6-10 I let into the group! So if what you mean by "more than just a game" is "a game that your players really enjoy," I think you'll find that there are many, many groups that play very differently from yours whose members are having the time of their lives.