Community

Oct 7, 2012 -- 12:00PM, Diffan wrote:

Oct 6, 2012 -- 10:05AM, Maxperson wrote:

Oct 6, 2012 -- 12:34AM, Haldrik wrote:

The earlier 1e-2e group had rules systems that were a mess. The game simply couldnt exist without the whim of DM arbitration. Hence the inescapable tyranny.

Maybe you should do some research so that you can understand what tyranny actually is.  Let me give you a hint.  It's not DM control and rulings.  Until you actually understand what tyranny is and can use it correctly, you just can't be taken seriously when you talk about it.
    

There can be tyrant DMs, just as there can be tyrant Players.

Yes there can be, but simply because the DM has the power does not automatically make him a tyrant.

A DM that uses his arbitration in a way in which all or most of the players don't like is Tyrannical, because he's using his power as DM to suppress the fun and enjoyment for a group.

A DM that does this is not a DM for long, so the game itself doesn't have to take this sort of person into consideration.  

Hopefully the majority of DMs aren't so close-minded and usually arbitrate so the players can have fun yet still tell an interesting story with lots of tension and danger.

This isn't something to be hopeful about.  It's already a fact.  The vast majority of DMs are not like that.

Personally I find that the more the game system requires or sites "See your DM" or "ask your DM" or "check with your DM" the more chances there are for conflict to arise. The more focused the game is, the less conflict there is due to an understanding of the universal rules.

I've rarely seen a conflict over this.  The people I play with understand that the world is the DMs to design and that if the DM says no, he isn't saying no to be an ass.  If you trust your DM, such conflict is rare.  If you do not trust your DM, you should not be playing with that person as a DM.

Oct 7, 2012 -- 12:16PM, Hocus-Smokus wrote:

Oct 6, 2012 -- 12:34AM, Haldrik wrote:

 
The earlier 1e-2e group had rules systems that were a mess. The game simply couldnt exist without the whim of DM arbitration. Hence the inescapable tyranny.

By contrast, 3e systemized these rules to a great degree, to an extent the players could understand the system, and have *expectations* for how the system should function. It was more obvious if the DM was rejecting the official system. (It would be absurd to accuse the 1e-2e DM of rejecting the official system because there was no functioning system - everything was ad hoc.)

I hate to read posts from players who had terrible DMs back in the AD&D days. It colors their opinions so badly. I feel sorry for them. Then there are posts from people who questionably ever played AD&D, but are instead parroting what they might have heard others say and assume they're true. "Inescapable tyranny"? "No functioning system"? "Everything was ad-hoc"? I truly hope these are super-exaggerations made out of jest. If not, then your DM from the AD&D days should be lynched. Super-lynched. At least 100 feet up, so they'll be more dead.

My friends and I are good DMs. Each brings unique strengths.

A benign dictator is still a dictator. A good king is still an autocrat. But really, because I usually play in groups who rotate the DM, even for the same characters, there has never been a sense of abuse with them. Real abuse is rare, but I have seen it. In fact, the stupidest downfall of “DM as tyrant” is, the DM tends to confuse being in power as if it is the same thing as being right. Poor judgment is common. Sharing the decision-making helps keep a better sense of perspective and avoids pitfalls.



Recently, on rereading the 2e books, I was shocked all over again at what a mess they are. Abstruse. A glance at the descriptions of the six abilities characterizes the randomly ad hoc cluster of incompatable subsystems.

Oct 7, 2012 -- 5:07PM, strider1276 wrote:

Oct 7, 2012 -- 4:39PM, Diffan wrote:

Trust is earned, not given. And IMO, not given lightly. So at Cons (for example) it's harder for me to make the good faith assumption that the DM is going to be AWESOME-SAUCE instead of a possible tyrant. I expect the middle of the road and anticipate the tyrant. What the rules can assume is that for mechanics, the less DM interpretation and influence, the less conflict there will be. This is limited to the mechanical elements of the game and not setting or flavor or anything like that, things DMs and Players should work together to create and maintain.

Are convention games the majority of games that the system is presumed to handle? I submit that they are not. Either way, the problem with tyrant players or DM's is a social one, outside of the game system to handle.

The rules cannot assume to handle every instance and permutation. DM interpretation and influence is not only anticipated, but it they are features, not bugs.

I find it sad that people apparently consider the DM a bug rather than a feature. 

We consider the loss of player agency a bug. We also find more work for the DM to be a bug, both of which happen when the DM has to ok every little thing in the game...