And I'm normally the DM. Having just finished typing everything below, I feel the need to say it is somewhat of a rant, but as such, it is heart felt.
I've been seeing some posts concerning 'player entitlement' and 'we need to reempower the DM' recently and it makes me ill. These posts usually reek with an elitist attitude, a promotion of favoritism (do things the way I like and you'll get bennies, play the game the way its written and I'll punish you).
I started playing with the basic box sometime around 1982. My friends and I moved on to 1st Edition and when I joined the army and went to Germany that's what I played D&D wise until 2nd came out (I also played TSR's Marvel Superheroes (basic and advanced), Top Secret and Top Secret S.I., Buck Rogers in the 25th Century, D.C. Heroes, James Bond from Avalon Hill, and Cyberpunk 2020, various Palladium Games, Rolemaster, Chivalry and Sorcery, and Aftermath came after I returned to the states, White Wolf and other games after Desert Storm). The groups I played with generally tried to make the game work out of the box so to speak (somethings were dropped as too time consuming, weapon vs. armor type chart for example) so instead of complex plans involveing spiked open doors and 10' poles, we actually tried to get by with a thief using his find/remove traps, Open Locks, etc. (perhaps backed by certain magic items, these are some hazy memories at this point).
The biggest source of arguements for us was always a DM(GM/ST/Narrator) saying "because I said so." Yes, that is printed in the books but I honestly believe that was one of the biggest errors that was ever made in the history of our hobby.
I forsee one arguement already, "somebody has to be in charge". Well, yes, but to paraphrase an important historical document, "governments are instituted among nations deriving their powers from the consent of the governed". There is already a movement amongst gamers for more player driven narrative in many games (I think John Wick's Houses of the Blooded is an excellent example, I'd love the game if it were not for John's primary premise, that your character will ultimately always fail, its about Tragedy and I guess I just don't get it, just like I don't get behind the personal horror aspect of White Wolf's games).
I actually like that Dnd finally succeeded in becoming a truly cooperative game between all the players (ultimately, the DM is just another player, no more, no less) and for it to backslide into encouraging petty tyranny and arbitrary 'because I said so' causes me to be concerned with the new edition.
I am hoping that there will be sufficient outcry during the playtest against this approach that it will be reconsidered once open playtest starts but what I fear will happen is people who oppose this form of gaming will just drop out of the playtest, WoTC will recieve the type of feedback that they hope to, and then we will end up with the New Coke of RPGs (I worked for a short time in Market Data Research, one of the horror stories told to us as new employees to emphasize the importance of following the testing protocols was that the firm that Coke retained to test the New Coke formula failed to do so and the result was that Coca-Cola expected New Coke to be a hit, not the bomb it was).
My ultimate point is the myth of the ultimate power of the DM needs to be taken out behind the chemical shed by a detail of five men and shot.
And I'm normally the DM. Having just finished typing everything below, I feel the need to say it is somewhat of a rant, but as such, it is heart felt.
I've been seeing some posts concerning 'player entitlement' and 'we need to reempower the DM' recently and it makes me ill. These posts usually reek with an elitist attitude, a promotion of favoritism (do things the way I like and you'll get bennies, play the game the way its written and I'll punish you).
I started playing with the basic box sometime around 1982. My friends and I moved on to 1st Edition and when I joined the army and went to Germany that's what I played D&D wise until 2nd came out (I also played TSR's Marvel Superheroes (basic and advanced), Top Secret and Top Secret S.I., Buck Rogers in the 25th Century, D.C. Heroes, James Bond from Avalon Hill, and Cyberpunk 2020, various Palladium Games, Rolemaster, Chivalry and Sorcery, and Aftermath came after I returned to the states, White Wolf and other games after Desert Storm). The groups I played with generally tried to make the game work out of the box so to speak (somethings were dropped as too time consuming, weapon vs. armor type chart for example) so instead of complex plans involveing spiked open doors and 10' poles, we actually tried to get by with a thief using his find/remove traps, Open Locks, etc. (perhaps backed by certain magic items, these are some hazy memories at this point).
The biggest source of arguements for us was always a DM(GM/ST/Narrator) saying "because I said so." Yes, that is printed in the books but I honestly believe that was one of the biggest errors that was ever made in the history of our hobby.
I forsee one arguement already, "somebody has to be in charge". Well, yes, but to paraphrase an important historical document, "governments are instituted among nations deriving their powers from the consent of the governed". There is already a movement amongst gamers for more player driven narrative in many games (I think John Wick's Houses of the Blooded is an excellent example, I'd love the game if it were not for John's primary premise, that your character will ultimately always fail, its about Tragedy and I guess I just don't get it, just like I don't get behind the personal horror aspect of White Wolf's games).
I actually like that Dnd finally succeeded in becoming a truly cooperative game between all the players (ultimately, the DM is just another player, no more, no less) and for it to backslide into encouraging petty tyranny and arbitrary 'because I said so' causes me to be concerned with the new edition.
I am hoping that there will be sufficient outcry during the playtest against this approach that it will be reconsidered once open playtest starts but what I fear will happen is people who oppose this form of gaming will just drop out of the playtest, WoTC will recieve the type of feedback that they hope to, and then we will end up with the New Coke of RPGs (I worked for a short time in Market Data Research, one of the horror stories told to us as new employees to emphasize the importance of following the testing protocols was that the firm that Coke retained to test the New Coke formula failed to do so and the result was that Coca-Cola expected New Coke to be a hit, not the bomb it was).
My ultimate point is the myth of the ultimate power of the DM needs to be taken out behind the chemical shed by a detail of five men and shot.
Thank you for reading.
+1 Finally someone with some sanity. Let's NOT return to the bad old days of the TIN GOD (tm) DM.
I agree. With the caveat that I haven't yet seen any evidence that the designers view the "player entitlement / DM empowerment" issue in the way the elitist grognards do.
I agree. With the caveat that I haven't yet seen any evidence that the designers view the "player entitlement / DM empowerment" issue in the way the elitist grognards do.
I have albeit indirectly. If I am to take the information we have been given at face value, then it seems pretty much ANY major decision in DnD 5e involves a game of "mommy may I" with the DM. That's very much the elitist "DM empowerment issue" you refer to or what I call the TIN GOD complex.
I can see where you're coming from. but I disagree.
The best gmnes I've ever had, have been with a competent GM calling the shots, GM empowerment is only a bad idea if your GM is a tool. And if you have that kind of GM, vote with your feet and find another game. I have done so on a few occasions. I've experienced DM's who huffily sit and say 'because i said so' and it makes me grind my teeth to be honest. But not every dm is like that.
Also something else to bear in mind - if the GM veto's a decision, you are playing in his vision of the setting, and (s)he needs to be empowered to protect the integrity of the setting and story that is being told. I agree that some GM's take it too far - but only a minority i think (but it's that minority that sticks in the mind i guess). If you are trying to do something that doesn't fit with how they have structured the story, and they cannot fit in what you want to do - you demanding to do it is akin to playing in an orchestra and trying to play a different piece to everyone else.
from what i have heard and read, 5e isn't about going to hte gm with your begging bowl. It's about dm/player interaction and giving both DM and Player to freedom and the tools to play co-operativly and creatively. TBH ever since the rules avalanche of 3e - I've found that missing in D&D a little because everything is written in stone. and it takes DM's and players of a certain mindset to break the constraints a little.
the way it's going - will allow for more creative play, more creative interaction between player and DM. more freedom to build the game the way you want it to be built. (that is assuming the WOTC manage to do what they set out to do) what people have seen so far - and this must be stressed - is the absolute basic early beta ruleset. I have no doubt that there will be a rules avalanche for 5e - but if wizards get it right - the choice as to whether you use it or not - is entirely yours.
so if you want a game where more of what you can and can't do is defined in rules - taking the pressure off the DM - you'll have it. But don't think that this is all about giving those idiots who take delight in screwing with their players more power - i truly don't think it is. What we've seen to me is a return to what i think RP is all about - collaborative storytelling.
so in short - i know where your concerns come from, you've been playing a long while by the looks of the games you've mentioned (longer than me - but even my first RPG was 1st edition WFRP) so you are speaking from long experience, but for me RP isn't about one or the other being empowered over the rest - it's about the player and the gm telling a story, and i think this edition is trying to redress the balance a little - because at the end of the day, both the players and the gm need to be empowered - or the players feel like puppets and the gm feels like an accountant just ticking numbers.
i'd rather have those chats with my players and GM's - let them try and come up with the weird stuff they do (but then my group is made up of people i have known for 15 years or so. A group that consistent tends to get used to each other's mindset and actions. Guess i'm lucky in that respect at least. I have a group of GM's I trust, and if they tell me i can't do something (which is rare) i take that and try something else instead. So i guess that's why i'm not so opposed to this, I've only really had 2 bad GM's in my life - one of whom empowered and overpowered the players too much. The other who wrote his adventures like screenplays - amazing stories, but too rigidly formed - he was very controlling with what we could and couldn't do - but it was justified because his story was so intricately crafted (still annoying though lol).
I think the game works best when the players and the DM work together to make the game fun. I sometimes have to make a judgement call that doesn't sit well with one player or another. Sometimes it takes too long to find a particuler rule I'm looking for, or I remenber one wrong, but I make a note to find answer if it exists or we as a group will discuss the issue and come to a consensus.
I have spent enough time facing unyielding idiots sitting behind their DM screens to know what to avoid. I don't want to alienate the people who I play with. They rely on me to provide a game that is fun and that they will want to play in the future. If I want to play I need them as much as they need me.
With that said there are aspects of the game where the DM has the right to make his own rules. Home brew campaign settings and other flavor oriented aspects of the game should be determined and communicated to the group. I started DMing in the early eighties and my game world reflects the rules used in the earlier versions of the game. The people I play with have played in my games for a very long time so they are as comfortable with my style as I am. New players have the option of hanging out with us or finding another place to play.
*edit* the following is in response to barefootwanderer, I haven't read Tlantl's post yet.
See, two of the best GMs I ever had (well they would have been) were exactly as you describe the last of your 2 bad GMs, and I really believe that they would have been great if they hadn't had "rule 0" to hide behind and could have been brought to compromise with their players.
Marc Macyoung on his website nononsenseselfdefense.com has an essay concerning assertiveness vs. aggression. In it, he mentions how (I'm paraphrasing here) 'when the angry monkey is in charge, you can see how everyone else is being a jerk, but not yourself'. Marc is explaining, in part, why many people who really think they are defending themselves end up in trouble with the law for engaging in a participatory fight.
People don't normally like to think of themselves as bad people or jerks, the human capacity for rationalization is amazing.
*edited out an example I didn't feel quite right about*
I actually like that Dnd finally succeeded in becoming a truly cooperative game between all the players (ultimately, the DM is just another player, no more, no less)
I totally disagree. The DM simply cannot be just another player, as he's always either more or less: at the fine grain, with "DM's fiat" style, he is entitled to adjudicate the outcome of actions. Without, he's just the player playing the losing side in a set of the encounter (not very fun). At the coarse grain, with "DM's fiat", he's entitled to keep the coherence of the setting. Without, he simply cannot, because the rules are above him -- so if a player want to play an out-of-place character (e.g., Wizard in a world without magic), there's nothing to prevent him from doing so.
Finally, just like you said, governments (and DMs) are instituted by consent of the governed (players). So, if the players are unsatisfied with a DM's style, they're free to replace him.
When I get to the point of finding such a DM, who can call the shots and call them in a way that it's actually fun: Yay!
So far I have had the following experiences: Rogues die and die often and there is nothing done about it. The only way to not have this happen is prodding everything with 10 foot poles (and even then there was ways to circumvent it). - And why Rogues? Because someone with some skill for sneaking and finding and disabling traps has to scout ahead. (pre-4e at least)
I have also seen tons of situations which were designed totally to the favor of one player / class, and the others could mostly sit around and wait and see. (see the lengthy diplomatic discussions, which can easily take hours and hours, but usually only evolve around the use of social skills - either by rolls or by being played out. OR the combat situations which thanks to crit-immune monsters and lack of alternative equipment, left other players out of the equation)
I have seen tons of even more situations, where one character, with the snap of a finger, would get in control of the situation via a rules construct (usually a spell), and the rest could just watch in awe. ... Which frankly gets a bit boring after a while.
All of that a good DM calling the shots could maybe have prevented - not always, but from becoming a regular memory. But I have played earlier versions of D&D and before that AD&D 2nd edition under various DMs, and I have always seen these same symptoms. And from trying to DM at least AD&D 2nd and D&D 3.5 I ave the feeling that mostly comes from a game, that simply doesn't really support the DM in how to handle such situations. Sure there are sentences in the DM section that give very, very general advice in how the game should be fun. But apparently that is far from enough. You need examples to go by and more than one, please, so you have a good guideline for rulings. And you need strategy advice, because a situation that is okay on level 3 might, if dealt with in the same way, no longer be okay in level 15.
And honestly, I have doubts as to seeing that happen, because of all the RPGs I have seen and played or DMd, this would be the first time, I'd see something like that.
The other alternative are, indeed, good, solid rules, that simply make it less likely to be in need of a ruling.
