I can't imagine not taking credit for something I wrote. I mean what are you guys going to do? Show up at my house? Bring your own bottle and we'll game.

Hiding is typically caused by fear or shame. Neither of those emotions seem to fit the persona, which makes it even more curious about which one is the cause of the actual person's not taking credit for his creation.

Quote from: David RIt seems kind of strange though. Why wouldn't a GM clarify any rules questions with his players (if they know more about them than him) ?

Because the culture has been such that the DM can do no wrong. He or she is God. The rules are his or her sole purview. As you touch upon, players talking about the rules, etc., can be seen as a challenge to the DM's authority.

Personally - and this is just me - I usually don't know the rules better than the players.

First and foremost, I don't care to. I go to the table as a GM to set up an interesting and fun adventure, help keep it interesting and fun along the way, and to adjudicate unclear situations as they arise.

Secondly, I don't know them rules as well as the players because I don't use them as much as the players. They're the ones who roll up characters. They're the ones who read all the Feats, skills, etc., planning out how their character will be able to affect the game world. If I, as the DM, want to have an NPC wizard build a magic portal, I say, "Wham! The NPC manages it." If I, as the DM, need some disease to decimate a town, I don't look up the disease rules.

Personally, I consider the players' character record sheets, their character, the mechanics surrounding them, to be the players' burden to bear.

In play, what I feel like I need to know off the top of my head are how basic rolls work and a decent amount of knowledge about combat rules.

How it works in our group is: Somebody thinks we're not using cover right. They say, "Hey, is that really how cover works?" If it's really important to know right then, we stop and look it up. If it's not, a couple of players not in the action look it up and report back.

I'm sure that if I, as a DM, said, "Nope, I don't want to do that," we wouldn't do that. But why would I? What would be the point? I'm happy to follow the rules - less work for me.

Seanchai

I see evidence of people without a lot of confidence in what they do who happen to be 'experts' in their field.

So what, the guy lacks the balls to admit he might not know the rules as well as that other guy? So what? Is rules mastery a job requirement over there? Will fucking up the AoO call for Mearls see him miss out on that big payraise? A writeup?

No?  

Then fuck it, dude. Its a fucking game, not an SAT test.

Quote from: StuartThat's actually the reason I don't want to DM 3.x D&D.  

I think all the players of a game should agree to the rules before the game begins.  D&D 3.x has a lot of rules, and I think players (rightfully) expect you to be using those rules.  If you want to play a looser game with more rules improvisation and making stuff up -- why are you playing 3.x?  Why not play OD&D?

Well, just state that up front?  "I plan on running a loose game - I may change rules on the fly, but I won't go too far, but if I don't like the way a particular thing is interacting with a scenario, I'll interpret it my way."

I started running my first 3.5 game a while back, and my group never had a problem with me making a few loose interpretations.  We'd discuss it, and in the end, I'd say "This is the way I want it to operate.  End of story" if they didn't agree with my interpretation.  That usually went over fairly well.

To the bigger point, I think its still there.  But I agree, the game should be more cooperative, and get away from the "antagonistic rivalry" between player and GM in the past.  The purpose is EVERYONE having fun.  Not the players putting one over on the GM, not the GM swinging his big power dick in the players face.  Player and GM can have fun without one "winning" over the other.

OD&D is what we do play.  

Mr. Wyatt has some good ideas, but I hope no one reading the fourth edition mistakes those "From the Pros" comments as advice for their own games.  The look more like the house rules comments in d20's Unearthed Arcana

Quote from: James McMurrayHiding is typically caused by fear or shame. Neither of those emotions seem to fit the persona, which makes it even more curious about which one is the cause of the actual person's not taking credit for his creation.

You mean neither of those emotions fit the online persona he cultivates.

Hilarious.

First of all: the quote actually references a style of DMing that grew up around DMing 3.0/3.5, when we collectively lost our DM's screens. (I agree with Seanchai's 'Been Playing that way over a decade'. Me too.

It also has specifically to do with rules adjudication. It goes something like this:

DM: "Ok, the bad guy moves here (indicates square) and casts his Vampiric Embrace spell,meanwhile cackling 'You'll never take me alive!"

Player: "can he move there? Because it looks like he going right past my guys threatened zone.."

DM Where..?

Player: right there

DM: Oh, I guess he is. Ok, he starts running past you, and you get an attack on him as he is cackling and running.

Player: I hit him. (rolls, rolls) Oh, I just 12 damage. Is he dead?

DM:  Oh I guess he is dead. Ok, instead of saying that he says "Curse you!"

The tactical game of D&D is one everyone can share the expertise on. The DM is expected to be a final arbiter but he doesn't really change or forego the rules except in extreme situations.

And the reason for this is because it makes a better game experience, it promotes people actually learning the damn rules, and it rewards the most skilled and talented players. It also unburdens the role of the DM from being the only guy who knows the rules (since everyone can lknow that) and puts him back in the role of a scenario manager and just running the game.

Quote from: Abyssal MawAnd the reason for this is because it makes a better game experience, it promotes people actually learning the damn rules, and it rewards the most skilled and talented players.

That depends on what skills and talents you want rewarded.  Rules mastery, tactical jiggery-pokery, and character twinkology are not high on my personal priority list right now.  More to the point, I've known lots of talented, fun players over the years who wanted nothing to do with those skills.

QuoteIt also unburdens the role of the DM from being the only guy who knows the rules (since everyone can lknow that) and puts him back in the role of a scenario manager and just running the game.

There are lots of version of D&D where being "the only guy who knows the rules" seems a lot less burdensome.  I was just telling my wife last night that I could probably hollow out a 3e or 4e PHB and store the entire original game inside it.

Quote from: jrientsThat depends on what skills and talents you want rewarded.  Rules mastery, tactical jiggery-pokery, and character twinkology are not high on my personal priority list right now.  More to the point, I've known lots of talented, fun players over the years who wanted nothing to do with those skills.

There are lots of version of D&D where being "the only guy who knows the rules" seems a lot less burdensome.  I was just telling my wife last night that I could probably hollow out a 3e or 4e PHB and store the entire original game inside it.

I don't know what a jiggery pokery or a twinkology is. I think that 3.X eventually did get to the point where both tactical and character build optimization was it's own downfall, and everyone was suspected to know the perfect combinations to the point that it became a barrier to entry, which it was never meant to be. (This was also fun to rebel against by the closing year- my Spellscale Bard was a fave). This has less to do with the actual rules and more to do with the culture that grew up around it. My friend Joe never ceased giving me crap about my sorcerer who took a level of fighter so he could have a scimitar. Even though I could never hit with it, I just thought it looked cool on my guy, and I had one spell (Whirling Blade) that worked really well with it. Thankfully efficiency and build are no longer the emphasis.

And certainly you could fit an entire Original D&D set of rules inside the existing rules. You could also fit an entire set of the rules for Kobolds ate my Baby in there. Or any number of things. But it doesn't matter. There's no time machine. We can't go back and be 14 years old again and live in that world when that thing we remember was the Big Thing.

But the important thing to note here is that the hypothesis of this entire discussion "The death of the referee" is COMPLETE BULLSHIT. I've really only ever been a DM. I've DM'd since I started playing. It's what I love doing. I'm never going to stop. If this game had no place for me as a DM, I wouldn't play it. I have no issues or hesitation about this at all.

Somewhere between the "System Does Matter and the GM is an abuser by definition" jackasses, and the "The Dm is the only thing that matters" camp there has to be some kind of middle ground. Because that's where I live. I know it exists. It's not "El Dorado" or "the impossible thing" or whatever people are calling it. It's a nice place.

Yesterday I ran 5 tables of the Shadowhaunt adventure for Worldwide D&D Gameday. Thats 25 players, only three of which had ever been at a 4e demo before. They all figured it out, nobody even cracked a PHB. 1st level characters. We had 5 great sessions! Are people really going to be steamed that people are playing this instead of the OD&D booklets?

I started playing AD&D1e in 1978. I didn't play with the OD&D booklets either.

Quote from: PseudoephedrineSame. I adopted this after giving up settling rules disputes through fist fights, somewhere around age 16.

I remember them days. We had a GM who acted like Walker seems to from his post here. He'd have lasted a long time if he was a helluva fighter. If not he'd last until stomped on. We were so barbaric back then.

Pardon me, but I am off to laugh as you reminded me of those crazy years. :haw:

Quote from: Abyssal MawFirst of all: the quote actually references a style of DMing that grew up
It also has specifically to do with rules adjudication. It goes something like this:

Sorry mate, what you described is not an adjudication, Check the dictionary:

Adjudication: To make a decision about (a controversy or dispute, for example) after deliberation, as in a court of law.

All you described was the GM failing to see he had moved a piece on a board to where he shouldn't have and the player pointing it out to him. There's no uncertainty whatsoever about any rules decision.

And it's not even a roleplaying example. It's a tactical minis combat situation. You might as well have been talking about Warhammer Fantasy Battle.

Quote from: Abyssal MawAnd the reason for this is because it makes a better game experience

I believe that is your personal preference, but do not generalise. Many in these forums appear not prefer that gamestyle.

Quote from: Abyssal Maw, it promotes people actually learning the damn rules,

"Damn rules"? Perhaps you are finding them just a bit to onerous and slow?

You could always try less crunchy systems without needlesly complicated combat resolution system, you know.

Quote from: Abyssal Mawand it rewards the most skilled and talented players.

Jeff has answered this better than I ever could and proven the affirmation is incorrect if applied in absolute due to its subjective nature.

Btw, hello Jeff, I love your blog!

Quote from: Abyssal MawIt also unburdens the role of the DM from being the only guy who knows the rules

I dare say my personal experience is that it burdens everyone around the table, GM and player alike, with the need having to learn a whole lot of rules. This is of course my personal and subjective experience. But I encountered repeatedly on multiple occasions to the point where it led me to abandon 3rd edition.

Quote from: Abyssal MawI don't know what a jiggery pokery or a twinkology is.

I shall strive to present an explanation of my fellow blogger's gaming slang terms

Tactical jiggery-pokery: A gamer's ability or skill to, having previously memorised a vast array of tactical combat rules (usually of the battle minis type), use his mastery of said rules to obtain the absolute optimal maximum result possible in any given combat situation his character finds himself in.
This, regardless whether said rules make any sense when subjected to logic scrutiny and critical reasoning.

Character twinkology: Another name for mini-maxing that perhaps expresses better the final goal of said activity, i.e. to create a character that is the absolute optimal in a given field, or a limited number of these, to the exclusion of mostly everything else and possibly to the extent of turning said role-playing game character into nothing more than a mockery of anything deserving that title, even remotely.

Quote from: Abyssal MawIt goes something like this:

Sounds like playing RQ in the 80s. You guys sure took a long time to catch up.

Quote from: walkerpFuck that!  First time a player at my table contradicts one of my rulings, he gets his fingers smashed with the nearest gamebook at hand (The Hero System, even though we play with the Savage Worlds Explorers Guide).  Second time it's a straight blow to the head!

Holy christ, bunch of hippies.

Make sure its 5th edition HERO (The one referred to as FHRED  at times) its heavier and will do the trick for you. Either that or the setting book Ptolus - now THATS a Brick of a book!


- Ed C.

Quote from: droogSounds like playing RQ in the 80s. You guys sure took a long time to catch up.

I know. Maybe one day we D&D players will be a significant force in the roleplaying hobby.