|
1 year ago ::
Feb 06, 2012 - 11:03PM
#51
|
|
|
Personally, I am opposed to DM fiat being enshrined in the rules as a sort of ultimate solution to every problem. The DM should not be the arbiter of the story being told at the table, but should be one participant of many-it is literally impossible for a DM to be the "creator of the story" and simulatenously allow the players to "play their characters" unless the character's motivations and such are perfectly molded to cause them to ride the rails that the DM has set up.
It is illuminating I think that a previous poster mentioned a hypothetical player wanting to play a wizard in a no-magic campaign. Personally, I'd welcome that-the players getting involved in shaping the setting and creating interesting conflict. Is this wizard the harbringer of a terrible new age of sorcery? The last of a dying breed (so to speak) hunted by inquisitors at every turn? A scion of an ancient clan of arcanists who have passed down their lore for centuries, guarding the knowledge necessary to keep the realms safe from malevolent extra-planar beings even as magic has slowly left the world? Having players answer those questions, and then having the other people at the table riff off of that (maybe another player says "We'll my character is actually the mage's brother, an inquisitor in training torn between his oath to hunt those who practice witchcraft and his loyalty to his big brother", while another wants to be the high priestess of a cult that has prophesied that the wizard will one day be the messiah-delivering a dying world from the curse of mundanity).
The key is for the DM to stop thinking of player suggestions and such as impositions on their "pristine perfect setting" and start thinking of them as ways for the players to get involved and start creating story by themselves! It is infinitely more interesting in my experience to portray NPCs as they would normally act, throw a couple of a high-conflict situations at the PCs that play off of their personalities and backstories and then see what sort of trouble the get themselves into! I've followed that rule with my game and thus far I've had:
*One noble sacrifice of a misunderstood warforged mage, who willingly corrupted himself in service to a demon lord to gain the power to wipe out a threat to his adopted village.
*A web of intrigue and duplicity as an imp who has sworn many pacts with various members of the party attempts to use the heroes of far dale to tear the village apart-and make it ripe for the picking.
*The players descending into a corrupted mine filled with otherworldly fey and far realm horrors, each for their own reasons each of their own free will, and ending up cleansing the place but ripping a hole in the fabric of reality with their hubris (and a hell of a lot of failed skill checks).
*A touching story of star-crossed love between an Elven priestess of Sehanine and the witch-daughter of an exiled fey queen, who wishes the meddling priestess dead so that she can manipulate her daughter, using her as a catspaw to regain her throne. What's awesome is that two other members of the party are officially her sworn knights....and one of them (an Eladrin Revenant) served her in a vaguely-remembered first life as well.
Seriously...there's a whole lot more that's sprung from me basically saying to the players "I'm not going to make you do anything. My job is to give you consequences for your actions (good and bad based on successful or failed rolls), information about the setting, and to control NPCs. Your job is to play your characters to the hilt, take action, and make difficult decisions. If you want to include something new in the setting, either work to accomplish it in character or talk to me and we'll work something out.
I believe in saying "Yes", "Yes and" and "No...But", all based on player character actions and rolls. There is no space in such an approach for DM fiat or railroading (and the two are intimately linked). All rolls are on the table out in the open. That is my position, and I sincerely hope there won't be any more of this "Rule Zero" bullcrap in D&D next.
|
|
|
|
1 year ago ::
Feb 06, 2012 - 11:54PM
#52
|
Date Joined:
Jun 29, 2004
|
Isn't the whole DM idea sort of an 80's thing? Do people really still take it seriously?
Heavy Rocks
|
|
|
|
1 year ago ::
Feb 07, 2012 - 12:17AM
#53
|
Date Joined:
Oct 28, 2008
|
The key is for the DM to stop thinking of player suggestions and such as impositions on their "pristine perfect setting" and start thinking of them as ways for the players to get involved and start creating story by themselves! It is infinitely more interesting in my experience to portray NPCs as they would normally act, throw a couple of a high-conflict situations at the PCs that play off of their personalities and backstories and then see what sort of trouble the get themselves into!
Seriously...there's a whole lot more that's sprung from me basically saying to the players "I'm not going to make you do anything. My job is to give you consequences for your actions (good and bad based on successful or failed rolls), information about the setting, and to control NPCs. Your job is to play your characters to the hilt, take action, and make difficult decisions. If you want to include something new in the setting, either work to accomplish it in character or talk to me and we'll work something out.
I believe in saying "Yes", "Yes and" and "No...But", all based on player character actions and rolls. There is no space in such an approach for DM fiat or railroading (and the two are intimately linked). All rolls are on the table out in the open. That is my position, and I sincerely hope there won't be any more of this "Rule Zero" bullcrap in D&D next.
I very much agree, and this level of cooperation and play between DM and players, and players with the other players is probably the pinnacle of the D&D experience.
However, I have also been in groups where the DM goes, "So, here is the world, and lists off many options, feel free to do and go wherever you like." And what do the players do..they just sit there. I have seen this many times.
The key is getting the players engaged. Likewise, the players need to create characters and story hooks that engages the DM. By this I mean, I have seen it where the DM really does key off the players' actions, personalities, and so on and the players still just sit there unless the DM prods them along. I have to admit, in some campaigns, I have needed prodding myself.
Some players really do need to be railroaded. I have seen groups just stagnate during free form play but really get going when the DM goes, "You guys head east and go into the tower and you do..." It seems there are a lot of player who like that, and they have fun.
I am more a free form DM as you are, I am 100% with you for much your post, but there has been times where if I didn't play the role of the railroad DM, the game would never happen. In fact, I have been asked by players to railroad. I know, it sounds strange, but it is true.
|
|
|
|
1 year ago ::
Feb 07, 2012 - 7:24AM
#54
|
Date Joined:
Jan 15, 2009
|
Personally, I am opposed to DM fiat being enshrined in the rules as a sort of ultimate solution to every problem. The DM should not be the arbiter of the story being told at the table, but should be one participant of many-it is literally impossible for a DM to be the "creator of the story" and simulatenously allow the players to "play their characters" unless the character's motivations and such are perfectly molded to cause them to ride the rails that the DM has set up.
It is illuminating I think that a previous poster mentioned a hypothetical player wanting to play a wizard in a no-magic campaign. Personally, I'd welcome that-the players getting involved in shaping the setting and creating interesting conflict. Is this wizard the harbringer of a terrible new age of sorcery? The last of a dying breed (so to speak) hunted by inquisitors at every turn? A scion of an ancient clan of arcanists who have passed down their lore for centuries, guarding the knowledge necessary to keep the realms safe from malevolent extra-planar beings even as magic has slowly left the world? Having players answer those questions, and then having the other people at the table riff off of that (maybe another player says "We'll my character is actually the mage's brother, an inquisitor in training torn between his oath to hunt those who practice witchcraft and his loyalty to his big brother", while another wants to be the high priestess of a cult that has prophesied that the wizard will one day be the messiah-delivering a dying world from the curse of mundanity).
The key is for the DM to stop thinking of player suggestions and such as impositions on their "pristine perfect setting" and start thinking of them as ways for the players to get involved and start creating story by themselves! It is infinitely more interesting in my experience to portray NPCs as they would normally act, throw a couple of a high-conflict situations at the PCs that play off of their personalities and backstories and then see what sort of trouble the get themselves into! I've followed that rule with my game and thus far I've had:
*One noble sacrifice of a misunderstood warforged mage, who willingly corrupted himself in service to a demon lord to gain the power to wipe out a threat to his adopted village.
*A web of intrigue and duplicity as an imp who has sworn many pacts with various members of the party attempts to use the heroes of far dale to tear the village apart-and make it ripe for the picking.
*The players descending into a corrupted mine filled with otherworldly fey and far realm horrors, each for their own reasons each of their own free will, and ending up cleansing the place but ripping a hole in the fabric of reality with their hubris (and a hell of a lot of failed skill checks).
*A touching story of star-crossed love between an Elven priestess of Sehanine and the witch-daughter of an exiled fey queen, who wishes the meddling priestess dead so that she can manipulate her daughter, using her as a catspaw to regain her throne. What's awesome is that two other members of the party are officially her sworn knights....and one of them (an Eladrin Revenant) served her in a vaguely-remembered first life as well.
Seriously...there's a whole lot more that's sprung from me basically saying to the players "I'm not going to make you do anything. My job is to give you consequences for your actions (good and bad based on successful or failed rolls), information about the setting, and to control NPCs. Your job is to play your characters to the hilt, take action, and make difficult decisions. If you want to include something new in the setting, either work to accomplish it in character or talk to me and we'll work something out.
I believe in saying "Yes", "Yes and" and "No...But", all based on player character actions and rolls. There is no space in such an approach for DM fiat or railroading (and the two are intimately linked). All rolls are on the table out in the open. That is my position, and I sincerely hope there won't be any more of this "Rule Zero" bullcrap in D&D next.
GREAT POST  
|
|
|
|
1 year ago ::
Feb 07, 2012 - 7:41AM
#55
|
Date Joined:
Aug 19, 2007
|
Some players really do need to be railroaded. I have seen groups just stagnate during free form play but really get going when the DM goes, "You guys head east and go into the tower and you do..." It seems there are a lot of player who like that, and they have fun.
This is true. To all people opposing railroading I say this: I hate railroading and avoid it in as many occasions as possible, but it is true that sometimes it is a necessary evil. I had characters stuck for three sessions not knowing what to do once. I railroaded them for one single session and they took the initiative from there, leading to a wonderful campaign. I hate to do it, and I believe I have learned some ways to avoid it with experience, but it happens that players just get... stuck.
Are you interested in an online 4E game on Sunday? Contact me with a PM! Spoiler:
Show
Reflavoring: the change of flavor without changing any mechanical part of the game, no matter how small, in order to fit the mechanics to an otherwise unsupported concept.
Retexturing: the change of flavor (with at most minor mechanical adaptations) in order to effortlessly create support for a concept without inventing anything new.
Houseruling: the change, either minor or major, of the mechanics in order to better reflect a certain aspect of the game, including adapting the rules to fit an otherwise unsupported concept.
Homebrewing: the complete invention of something new that fits within the system in order to reflect an unsupported concept. Ideas for 5ESpoiler:
Show
|
|
|
|
1 year ago ::
Feb 07, 2012 - 8:42AM
#56
|
Date Joined:
Dec 12, 2007
|
I consider it very relevant that the ones who seem to be against dm empowerment and really want rock solid rules appear to be the 4e crowd.
This kinda leads me to my conclusion that what that group really wants is just a tactical wargame to play. I think all of you should really take it to heart and go play and read some warhammer 40k rules. Find someone to play a couple of games with to learn that system.
I love tactical wargames to, they are not the reason I play dnd but I do still love them. The reason we have a dm in the first place is diametrically opposite the reason you do not need one in a wargame.
In SFB, warhammer 40k, or battletech you just roll the dice and what happens happens. You need no storyteller, guide, dm, gm, or anyone else to interpret the rules or the world. It is already predetermined and your choices while very numerous are set in certain patterns that cannot be changed. There is no rule zero in such games.
|
|
|
|
1 year ago ::
Feb 07, 2012 - 8:56AM
#57
|
Date Joined:
Jun 27, 2004
|
I still have no idea what people mean by "DM Empowerment".
Feedback Disclaimer
Show
Yes, I am expressing my opinions (even complaints - le gasp!) about the current iteration of the play-test that we actually have in front of us.
No, I'm not going to wait for you to tell me when it's okay to start expressing my concerns (unless you are WotC).
(And no, my comments on this forum are not of the same tone or quality as my actual survey feedback.)
A Psion for Next (Playable Draft)A Barbarian for Next (Brainstorming Still)My 4e Projects
Show
|
|
|
|
1 year ago ::
Feb 07, 2012 - 8:58AM
#58
|
Date Joined:
Apr 15, 2009
|
Some players really do need to be railroaded. I have seen groups just stagnate during free form play but really get going when the DM goes, "You guys head east and go into the tower and you do..." It seems there are a lot of player who like that, and they have fun.
This is true. To all people opposing railroading I say this: I hate railroading and avoid it in as many occasions as possible, but it is true that sometimes it is a necessary evil. I had characters stuck for three sessions not knowing what to do once. I railroaded them for one single session and they took the initiative from there, leading to a wonderful campaign. I hate to do it, and I believe I have learned some ways to avoid it with experience, but it happens that players just get... stuck.
While true, almost always this is not a problem of the players. It's a problem of structure of the campaign or structure of the game. Maybe the goal of campaign is not enough clear, the characters have not a specific goal except than "fuff around", the game does not do a good job at explaining what the characters are and what they can accomplish.
If it's a problem of the players (a rare case), it probably means that those players don't really like playing an RPG, since they are asking to be told a story.
|
|
|
|
1 year ago ::
Feb 07, 2012 - 9:03AM
#59
|
Date Joined:
Oct 17, 2007
|
This kinda leads me to my conclusion that what that group really wants is just a tactical wargame to play. I think all of you should really take it to heart and go play and read some warhammer 40k rules. Find someone to play a couple of games with to learn that system.
Unfortunately your conclusion of 'what people want' is of little consequence, and no: you cannot throw then a copy of WH40K and a bunch of minis to make them be quiet.
More likely they enjoy storytelling and DMing as well as everyone else, but some prefer a system which support most of the basic interactions and mechanics by itself, so that the DM can focus on other aspects.
It's not black or white, it's where each one puts the emphasis. And it would be good and sensible for D&DN to allow flexibility in its approach to this.
|
|
|
|
1 year ago ::
Feb 07, 2012 - 9:05AM
#60
|
Date Joined:
Jan 15, 2009
|
I still have no idea what people mean by "DM Empowerment".
Permission to be arrogant tin plated godlings and not cooperate when players have differing interests... ie Gygaxian diatribes about being the all powerfull master of game play
|
|
|
