PDA

View Full Version : Power of a DM



skyclad
2009-10-10, 03:47 AM
Ive noticed that a lot of players here think that they should have a sense of "equality" or "fairness" with their DM. What is your opinion on this?
It kind of baffled me when I first came here... To give you some background, Ive mostly played swedish RPGs, where in almost all of them, the first two rules are:

1. The DM is always right
2. If the DM for any reason should ever be wrong, see rule nr 1

And then going on about how you should not argue with the DM, that he is like a sports referee, would you argue with him?

What is your stand on this? How much power should a DM hold compared to his players? Since I grew up with DMs being superior, perfect beings that could do no wrong, I guess you know my stance. Its never been a problem either when I DM or when I play.

Both when I DM or play, we all expect the DM to roll dice for no reason, just to mess with the players. To ignore the roll results as often as he thinks is appropriate. To roll many dice for the players, hidden from them, so they dont know if they suceeded in sneaking up on the town guard until he either turns around and stabs you in the stomach or you bash his head in...
Is it fair? No and in my opinion it shouldnt be.
But Im definitelly rambling at this point. I just think its so interesting that there are a few different philosophies about this.

How "fair" are your games?

Raltar
2009-10-10, 04:12 AM
Well, by the rules, the DM is always right. They have the power to change or ignore whatever rules they want. However...the DMs number one job is to make sure everyone involved has fun. So, while they do have the power to change everything and pretty much do anything they what, a good DM won't unless it is in the best interest of all involved.

Chrono22
2009-10-10, 04:19 AM
The idea that a GM should and has to have total control is archaic... pen and paper RPGs (even the ones that pit players against eachother) are inherently cooperative- we are all there to have a good time.
The main reason why having a GM is important is simply because consolidating the power to choose to a single person is faster- having no framework for solving disagreements would slow a pen and paper game to a standstill.

While a framework is required, it need not concentrate all power on the GM. Players already have platitude to create origins for their characters. They can create towns, family members, and plot hooks for the GM or other players to exploit. The rules for combat exist so that a GM doesn't have to rest control from everyone else- we all abide by an agreed upon standard and operate within those procedures.

An RPG could operate just fine without a GM.

Mystic Muse
2009-10-10, 04:21 AM
I'm willing to listen to objections. If my player/s were being overly stupid I will not rectify the action they just took however.

and if you make me mad enough I WILL use "rocks fall everyone dies."

Vizzerdrix
2009-10-10, 04:29 AM
I Don't agree with rule 1. every now and again my DMs will be unaware of a rule so I point it out to them. If they decide they don't like it, we junk the rule and wing it.

(This is a rare thing. I think the last time had to do it with force damage and ghosts or something.)

Katana_Geldar
2009-10-10, 04:38 AM
As a GM I am fairly easy to work with given that we all want to have fun and me being all killer on the players doesn't mesh well. But it also says a lot about how I run games, as I am a storyteller. If I was a Powergamer, it might be a wee bit different.

Working with the GM is a negotiation process, I have found that players will come to me with things they want to play that I fist thought that I could not fit into the campaign. However, since the player was willing to make a few concessions I was as well and we were both happy.

A good example is with my current campaign. I GM SW Saga and one of the players wanted to be a clone in the middle of the Clone Wars. Clones, given they're living droids pointed at the Seppies, would not mesh well with a more freelance fringes style campaign which is what most of the players want to do, unless he was a deserter. And, given that the campaign was to put them under the eye of some high up LG NPCs in order to get them to a lot of really good space battles and have some influence over the outcome.
At first, I said no, no clones until the war is over and then you can play a deserter when we get to the Empire era. Then, I adapted my idea, told him he good be a clone (and get his own squad) but an NPC Jedi was going to be his CO and give him orders. In the end, a lot of the campaign was built around his character and the mission the Jedi gave him, which worked really well in the end given that this player was able to keep everyone else on the straight and narrow (except for the sessions that he missed :smallannoyed:).

The DM in the 4E game I am playing is great to work with, to the point where he made one of my character backstory NPCs an element in the campaign.

Lioness
2009-10-10, 05:02 AM
We are generally able to negotiate and debate with our DM, but in the end we conform to rules 1 and 2. If we want to do something that is technically within the rules, but he sees as unfair to the rest of the characters or the campaign, then he wont let us do it. We accept that. We don't want either ruin the game for others or upset the relationship with the DM. We have a good friendly thing going on here.

One time when the DM was ticked off at a certain PC, because he was just being annoying and pigheaded, the DM rolled to attack. He rolled about 7 times, and none of them hit. The player knew he deserved it, so he didn't complain.

Katana_Geldar
2009-10-10, 05:05 AM
There are times to bring in new ideas though. A GM will be much more open to new ideas before or early in a campaign than in the middle or towards the end. Getting to the end of the campaign and coming across a new idea, I'd be inclined to say "Yes, that's a very good idea but I don't see how we could get there at the moment. How about you come back to me with it more developed and we could put it in later?"

GallóglachMaxim
2009-10-10, 05:16 AM
I Don't agree with rule 1. every now and again my DMs will be unaware of a rule so I point it out to them. If they decide they don't like it, we junk the rule and wing it.

Well that's what the rule should be, the DM isn't necessarily right, but gets the final decision. In the games I run I'm happy to be proved wrong, but in the interests of keeping things moving ask my players to prove me wrong after the session. If there's something I just don't know, it's better for the players to point it out, like in your example, so we can move on.

Gelondil
2009-10-10, 05:17 AM
As a DM, I hold myself to the same rule standards as the players. Games are balanced for that express purpose.

The only time I "cheat" is when I have set up an encounter or situation that was significantly overpowered or underpowered compared to the players - in these situations I will fake dice rolls to bring the encounter to party level.

Both of these are more fun for the characters, cakewalks are boring and TPKs are mood-breakers.

oxinabox
2009-10-10, 05:21 AM
And then going on about how you should not argue with the DM, that he is like a sports referee, would you argue with him?
sport referees make mistakes.
Don't apply the rules corectly. it on the news sometimes, and there mistakes can change the outcome of the game.

Similar applies to DM's.

DragoonWraith
2009-10-10, 05:27 AM
Umael's sig sums up my feelings:

Have fun - It's only a game.
The DM has the final say - Everyone else is just a guest.
The game is for the players - A proper host entertains one's guests.
Everyone is allowed an opinion - Some games are not as cool as they seem.

Vangor
2009-10-10, 06:16 AM
The DM can bypass the rules, but without discussion one might as well play whatever random system the DM can think of on the fly rather than an agreed upon game. I don't believe the basic rule should be the DM is always right, rather the DM is the final arbiter.

The Dark Fiddler
2009-10-10, 06:27 AM
In any game I play in, as a player or a DM, the DM has the final say, but the players CAN argue.

The DM is allowed to take lapses from the rules as long as there's a reason (Player: How did they hit me? They were using Slings and they were 300 feet away! DM: There was such a large cloud of them that some of them were guaranteed to hit you.)

Fluffles
2009-10-10, 08:35 AM
In any game I play in, as a player or a DM, the DM has the final say, but the players CAN argue.

The DM is allowed to take lapses from the rules as long as there's a reason (Player: How did they hit me? They were using Slings and they were 300 feet away! DM: There was such a large cloud of them that some of them were guaranteed to hit you.)

Don't slings have a maximum range of around 150'?

Foryn Gilnith
2009-10-10, 08:42 AM
Max sling range is 500 feet. RAW, being 300 feet away only gives them a -12 penalty to attack. Enough of them will roll natural 20s. No fudging the rules there.

DM is always right on mechanical aspects, yes. That doesn't give him license to be a jerk in the social part of the game. "Rocks fall, everybody dies painfully while the demons extricate and violate your dead bodies" is mechanically sound, but OOC it's a real **** move.

DM is always right - including when the DM changes his mind. DM says something, and he's right. The players whine, negotiate, and debate about what "should" happen, as is their right. If unsuccessful, the DM isn't wrong for ignoring them. But the DM isn't wrong to accede to their demands either.

Johel
2009-10-10, 08:50 AM
Fairness : yes.
without that, your game will drown right to hell, as the DM put up overpowered and overly complicated challenge while you try to pass cheese through the radar.

Equality : no.
The DM is a mix between a storyteller and a referee.
As a storyteller, he must give the initial drive of the scenario and keep the players from getting off tracks too much. Retain the focus of his public and motivate them to participate.
As a referee, it's his job to remain above the "melee" to settle disputes and abuses. He must also be free to alter the world enough for players to NOT screw things up.
Players will have much more fun if they give moral authority to the DM to settle matters when needed. But because of said authority, the DM isn't equal to the player.
This also stems from the fact, while their goals (have fun) and the desired result (beat a scenario) are the same, their point of view is different : DMs usually look at how the setting runs while players look after Crowning Moments of Awesome for their characters.

Riffington
2009-10-10, 09:11 AM
On rules questions, the DM is the ultimate arbiter. Want to show her a section of the book that she might choose to use instead of the rule she's going with? Make it quick, or save it for after game. If she likes her own better than the rulebook, hers goes.

Plot and setting and minor NPCs are mostly DM, but it's kinda fun to make that a shared responsibility.

The DM is the only person at the table who is allowed to "cheat" (although it isn't exactly cheating when she does it.)

Tyndmyr
2009-10-10, 09:17 AM
Well, there's going to be some differing opinions here, because this has been a bit of a contentious point when it's arisen before.

The DM is not always right. They are human, they make mistakes too. Yes, it's necessary to have a final arbitrator of rules, and that generally ends up being the DM, but this isn't a license to completely ignore the rules. Sure, rolling dice at odd times to mess with your players...you can definitely do that. No rule against it.

Ignoring dice at will? Much touchier. Why bother rolling if you'll only accept a certain outcome?

Now, this doesn't mean everyone must follow rules exactly from the book. House rules are lovely. It just means that it's best if everyone follows a set of mutually agreed upon rules. Making up rules by DM fiat is a bad thing if your players are not in agreement.

PinkysBrain
2009-10-10, 09:32 AM
To roll many dice for the players, hidden from them, so they dont know if they suceeded in sneaking up on the town guard until he either turns around and stabs you in the stomach or you bash his head in...
Is it fair? No and in my opinion it shouldnt be.
The DM might be always right, but that doesn't preclude him from being stupid. I have ears, I know where I put my feet ... not knowing the move silently check results for my own character is pretty damn stupid and immersion breaking.

Anyway, the DM has absolute power to determine what he accepts during his game ... the player has absolute power to determine whether he wants to be in the game at all. The amount of rules discussion during game hangs in the balance of those two powers and the quality of the DM and the players.

A DM which doesn't make a lot of mistakes and doesn't fudge the rules to railroad will have very little discussion even without being draconian about it ... assuming reasonable players.

Zincorium
2009-10-10, 09:38 AM
If the DM actually says that, instead of leaving it unspoken, they'd better be damn good at being a DM. I'm willing to put up with a lot as a player for a game that's genuinely fun.

A DM who can't remember the rules for common things, like attacks of opportunity, or makes up rules that mess up the game, really hurts the enjoyment of their players. Same as a sports referee who makes bad calls. Both are going to get replaced at the soonest opportunity and have no one to blame but themselves.

As for fairness:

Don't play favorites. Don't make situations where the characters have a 100% chance of losing. Those are the two that really matter- you can't keep a group together if you do either repeatedly.

The Dark Fiddler
2009-10-10, 10:17 AM
Don't slings have a maximum range of around 150'?

Really?

Ah, replace sling with something with less range then, and my point remains.

Kylarra
2009-10-10, 10:35 AM
Rule 1 should never be a literal "the DM is always right", but rather "the DM has final say in order to expedite matters during the session". Nothing kills immersion and roleplaying goodness like a player trying to argue their point for 30+ minutes. If you can bring up your point in less than 5 minutes and it sounds reasonable, sure maybe. Else we'll go with the DM ruling for now and look up the rules when we break at the end.

boomwolf
2009-10-10, 10:52 AM
Well...

I'd say fairness is overrated.

In my games, 50% of the challenges are "should be won, but will cost you spells and hp", 20% are "easy, can be done without resource wasting", 25% are "challenging, you'll need to be smart this time" and 5% are "winning here is figuring out you can't win, and running away."

Gives a more realistic feel.
Yet, you MIGHT encounter an adult red dragon while level 5, but you can survive if you got the brains not to engage it.

Vizzerdrix
2009-10-10, 10:53 AM
Don't slings have a maximum range of around 150'?

Max is 500 feet... With a half pound hunk of lead... For a d4+str...

By the gods I love the Sling as a weapon!

Narmoth
2009-10-10, 10:59 AM
The reason I think the dm should have the full power, is that he prepared for the game. He is the only one who made an effort beforehand in making fun for the rest of the players, and should be rewarded by having the ability to break rules and have final say in arguments.
I hate nothing more than when a player argues that he should be able to bring in a munchkin optimized caster just because he's legal by the D&D rules

Ormur
2009-10-10, 11:52 AM
I know less about the game than many of my players so if they point out some mechanic I'm screwing up I would correct the error unless my session depends on it. I reserve the right to change the rules but in that case I think the DM should let the players know beforehand.

Raum
2009-10-10, 12:24 PM
What is your stand on this? How much power should a DM hold compared to his players? Since I grew up with DMs being superior, perfect beings that could do no wrong, I guess you know my stance. Its never been a problem either when I DM or when I play. GMs have as much control as the players give them. It's the 'social contract' of the game and it will change as the system and players change. Life isn't static and neither are gaming tastes.

Problems usually only occur when the GM and players disagree on who controls what in the game. Or when someone attempts to extend that control outside of the game, but that's a different issue. Most of the problems could be avoided by simply discussing 'how' you'd like to play and what your expectations are...as both player and GM.

Don't lose sight of one simple fact: It's a game!

Kallisti
2009-10-10, 12:41 PM
DMs are people too, and they can make mistakes. It's okay for players to point out a mistake or contest a ruling they disagree with. But what they have to remember is that the DM gets the final say. If you don't agree with him, just let it go or leave the game. If enough players would rather leave the game than live with the rulings the DM is making, then start a new game, possibly with a different DM.

Zeta Kai
2009-10-10, 12:41 PM
An RPG could operate just fine without a GM.

No. That is wrong. Dead wrong. A pen-&-paper RPG needs a GM, without a doubt. To prove this, I ask the following questions:

Who mediates arguments between players?
Who keeps the game running when players stop to quote Monty Python?
Who generates the plot of a game?
Who crafts the adventure/dungeon?
Who plays as the NPCs/monsters?
Who sets the difficulty of tasks?
Who makes the puzzles/mysteries for players to solve?
Who keeps secrets from the players, for them to discover later?
Who here has played a tabletop RPG without a GM?
Was it anything like a game with one?

A game without a GM is very similar to a game without players.

Eldariel
2009-10-10, 12:54 PM
I listen to DM in-game unless he says something completely stupid, which I'll bring up OOC with him on the spot. I'll defer to his judgment for the duration of the game, after bringing up what the rules have to say on the subject and what feels/doesn't feel sensible, but I definitely treat DM as a fellow gamer and a human, because that's precisely what they are.

I won't argue their encounters or NPCs or such, but if I think DM e.g. forgot about Concealment rules or is handwaving autosuccesses to some creatures, and am reasonably sure the creatures ignoring said rules have no such abilities, I'm going to quickly OOC point it out either in-game if it's not too disruptive or after game if I there's a flow I don't want to interrupt.


But yeah, DM is GM and leads the game and defines the game rules, but at the same time the game is a collaborative effort and everyone should have a say in what exactly you're playing and the DM shouldn't e.g. lie to his players about what he's gonna DM for them. So yeah, as long as DM plays by the unspoken agreement in the table, I'm going to go along with it. Breaking said agreement earns revoking his DM permission.

Really, with us it works kinda like the Finnish democracy; the government makes laws, but the president has the power to break the government if he finds they aren't working in the best interest of the country. So the DM is the government and the players are the president. DM can do whatever he wants, but if players don't like it, the DM will get the boot. Note that this has never actually happened yet; we play within a circle of friends and as such can deal with whatever issues come up in a civil manner out-of-game, but at the same time we all agree that DM power trips are not tolerated and the DM is as responsible to the players as the players are to the DM.

Raum
2009-10-10, 01:00 PM
No. That is wrong. Dead wrong. A pen-&-paper RPG needs a GM, without a doubt. Meh, look past D&D. There are GM-less games available.

jiriku
2009-10-10, 01:01 PM
Fairness is important, equality is not. D&D assigns power to the DM and grants him total authority to arbitrate, interpret, and change the rules. It was an extreme situation, but I once ditched an entire gaming group because the players felt they could dictate the game to me and set their own house rules at will.

Now, as a player I will argue the rules with the DM if I feel he's making a mistake or forgetting a rule. But I argue politely. :P And if the DM feels that the RAW are inconvenient, he has unlimited authority to houserule as he sees fit.

When I DM, I carry the burden of making sure that everyone has a good time. If I treat players unfairly, they won't have fun, so I must be fair with them. I may have the power to define the rules as I see fit, but I have a mandate to use that power to create an enjoyable experience, not to stroke my own ego.

Zeta Kai
2009-10-10, 01:05 PM
The role of the GM is a simple one, but one that entails a number of different aspects: The GM runs the game.

That means that the game must be fair, fun, & entertaining for all participating parties. It's a collaboration with the other players to create a unique & pleasant experience. The GM is given as much power as s/he needs to accomplish these goals. If they fail, then the game as a whole is a failure. To restrict the GM is to restrict the game itself, for the GM is an integral part of the game. The GM is essentially an incarnation of the game, an embodiment of the rulebooks & game design theory & player psychology & storytelling, all rolled into one person. One flawed, human person.

Good luck, because it's as simple (& as terrifying) as that.

woodenbandman
2009-10-10, 03:27 PM
I follow the rules to just before the point of stupidity.

I do do the "secret rolls" thing, though. I don't tell them the DC, and I on very rare occasions fudge a die roll (usually if an NPC is trying to interrupt something the players are having fun with simply because it's within the NPC's character), for the most part to help the players.

Foryn Gilnith
2009-10-10, 03:52 PM
In my games, 50% of the challenges are "should be won, but will cost you spells and hp", 20% are "easy, can be done without resource wasting", 25% are "challenging, you'll need to be smart this time" and 5% are "winning here is figuring out you can't win, and running away."

Gives a more realistic feel.

Like the Dungeon Master's Guide said, quite prominently in its own little table near the EL/XP section, and none of the idiot module developers ever bothered listening to...
The one time WotC decided to listen to its own advice and include a higher-CR Delver encounter, the idiot sheeple shouted them down for making an "overpowered" encounter...

Drascin
2009-10-10, 04:50 PM
Generally, we play with a milder version of that. "Unless someone has a very strong objection, what the DM says goes" is our unspoken rule. We generally play games where the rules are treated like plaster - they make a good base, but they're to be molded as we see fit. For that, the DM needs to have a bit of executive power, so he gets final vote on what we're going with in the end.

But really, it's all a matter of the DM being able to read his players :smallwink:.

Chrono22
2009-10-10, 04:56 PM
No. That is wrong. Dead wrong. A pen-&-paper RPG needs a GM, without a doubt. To prove this, I ask the following questions:
[LIST]
Who mediates arguments between players?
It depends on the circumstances. Whoever has temporary narrative control (directing) during a scene. If it's during combat, the rules should. If there is confusion in the rules, the group as a whole should vote. If the vote ties, flip a coin.


Who keeps the game running when players stop to quote Monty Python?
The director, if there is one at the time. If the players are acting freely, and there is no overarching plot or combat related reason for restricting offtopic conversation, why bother?


Who generates the plot of a game?
The character creation guidelines for one part, and the collaboration of the backgrounds, origins, archetypes, and destinies of the characters. On a scene for scene basis, the majority of the group could overturn the setup of a director if they deem an alternative as being more fun, interesting, and engaging.


Who crafts the adventure/dungeon?
The publisher, or a player if he has enough interest. Adventures need not be restricted to dungeons or even combats, but I'm sure you know that already.


Who plays as the NPCs/monsters?
Whichever player is not actively playing his PC at the time. If the NPC is tied to a character's origin or backstory, the PC it is connected to controls it... unless that player grants control of the npc to another player or if the director gains temporary permission to control it.
In combat, the rules are usually what arbitrates. But the final say is the group- they may override the rules if they prove to be insufficient in a circumstance.


Who sets the difficulty of tasks?
The players, before they begin the campaign. In a published adventure, the one who designed it. For a roleplay scenario, the director.


Who makes the puzzles/mysteries for players to solve?
See above.


Who keeps secrets from the players, for them to discover later?
The players keep secrets from eachother. However, for the most part the game would function openly.


Who here has played a tabletop RPG without a GM?
I have. Many times.


Was it anything like a game with one?

Yes. Somewhat less expedient, but just as enjoyable. With a decent framework to show how players can share narrative control, and combat rules that work well both comparatively and in a vacuum, it can work.


A game without a GM is very similar to a game without players.
The GM is a player.:smallwink:

Siosilvar
2009-10-10, 04:59 PM
-snip-

GM-less games don't work in all groups, though. They're contingent upon finding reasonable players who know how to keep personal grudges out of the game and how to work as a group.

Not everybody does these things.

Sinfire Titan
2009-10-10, 04:59 PM
No. That is wrong. Dead wrong. A pen-&-paper RPG needs a GM, without a doubt. To prove this, I ask the following questions:

Who mediates arguments between players?
Who keeps the game running when players stop to quote Monty Python?
Who generates the plot of a game?
Who crafts the adventure/dungeon?
Who plays as the NPCs/monsters?
Who sets the difficulty of tasks?
Who makes the puzzles/mysteries for players to solve?
Who keeps secrets from the players, for them to discover later?
Who here has played a tabletop RPG without a GM?
Was it anything like a game with one?

A game without a GM is very similar to a game without players.

It's actually possible to run a pure-encounter campaign in 4E without an individual DM. Each round, a different player gets control of the encounter's monsters. He chooses their actions, everything. Every round, another player gets control.

It takes a gentleman's agreement, but it can be done fairly easily.

horseboy
2009-10-10, 05:03 PM
I come from the bad ole days of the 80's when Gygax's poor communication skills left vague the concepts of roleplaying. That meant 15 year old social maladjusted misfits were given absolute power. It's no wonder player agency came about.
GM's have absolute control over NPC's. NPC's and PC's interact via agree on structures.
The only time I argue with another GM is when he's done something that's broken my verisimilitude. Like trying to tell me there are no churches in all of Middle Earth. That'll usually get him a 45 min lecture on how "Humans don't work that way."

Jarawara
2009-10-10, 05:27 PM
Like trying to tell me there are no churches in all of Middle Earth. That'll usually get him a 45 min lecture on how "Humans don't work that way."


It's fantasy, so the humans of Middle Earth don't have to conform to your idea of how humans work or don't work. And I can't think of a single scene in either the books or the movies where there was a church portrayed, not even in the background.

I think he's right, there are no churches throughout all of Middle Earth.

And I'd boot you 10 minutes into your lecture.

Tengu_temp
2009-10-10, 06:04 PM
Umael's sig sums up my feelings:

Have fun - It's only a game.
The DM has the final say - Everyone else is just a guest.
The game is for the players - A proper host entertains one's guests.
Everyone is allowed an opinion - Some games are not as cool as they seem.

I don't agree with point number 3. The game is both for the players and the DM. If the players have fun but the DM doesn't, it's almost as bad as when the DM has fun and the players don't - and it's better only because there's less people who don't have fun.

Sir_Elderberry
2009-10-10, 06:13 PM
I think he's right, there are no churches throughout all of Middle Earth.

The Numenoreans worshiped Eru, I believe, because it's mentioned that they turned away from him and started worshiping Sauron. This didn't work out for them. I imagine that Eru or Valar worship is probably present on Middle Earth, although they certainly have nothing resembling real-world established religions.

Jarawara
2009-10-10, 06:26 PM
Yes, they worship Eru (and Sauron), but that doesn't mean they have *churches*.

Then again, they might. I don't know the source material good enough.

The point is, if the DM says there are no churches, then there are no churches. Quoting Human psychology doesn't matter - in D&D, Humans are a fantasy race, and the DM can say what Humans will or will not do.

(I have more on this topic, but I gotta run, so I'll post more later.)

(And humans, being what they are, *have* made a church of Tolkein!)

Zeta Kai
2009-10-10, 06:28 PM
It's actually possible to run a pure-encounter campaign in 4E without an individual DM. Each round, a different player gets control of the encounter's monsters. He chooses their actions, everything. Every round, another player gets control.

It takes a gentleman's agreement, but it can be done fairly easily.

That round-robin GMing, not negating the role the GM provides for the game. You're basically saying that in a game without a GM, everyone picks up the slack. That only strengthens my supposition that a GM is necessary for tabletop RPing. Without a designated mediator, all the other players must collaborate to create the world, run the NPCs, adjudicate the rules, & craft a playable plot. While running their own characters.

And I'm not just talking D&D, hence why I'm using the more universal term GM, & not the D&D-specific term DM. I could use the WoD term Storyteller, or judge, or narrator, or referee, or director, or any other term for the GM in other games. The role of a GM is clear (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gamemaster), & not easily replaced.

Hawriel
2009-10-10, 06:29 PM
Meh, look past D&D. There are GM-less games available.

Here are some examples...

Warhammer Quest

Necromunda

Wizwar

Magic the gathering

Rage

Mass Effect

Balder's Gate

Tyndmyr
2009-10-10, 06:39 PM
It's actually possible to run a pure-encounter campaign in 4E without an individual DM. Each round, a different player gets control of the encounter's monsters. He chooses their actions, everything. Every round, another player gets control.

It takes a gentleman's agreement, but it can be done fairly easily.

This also works in 3.5. There are random tables for *everything*.

It requires that everyone involved have a pretty good grasp of the rules, and of course, the usual gentleman's agreement, but it works out rather nicely, and is one way of circumventing a lack of a DM(another is round robin DMing, which can also work out swimmingly assuming the above prerequisites are met as well).

I've played around with randomizing targets(for monsters that don't specify preferred targets), and I think it'd be reasonably possible to design an aggro system such that there really isn't any need for GM decisions at all. Combined with the existing randomization tables(add one for artifacts), and the use of a prebuilt adventure(or randomized dungeon and monsters), that would pretty much negate the need for a DM.

horseboy
2009-10-10, 07:20 PM
It's fantasy, so the humans of Middle Earth don't have to conform to your idea of how humans work or don't work. And I can't think of a single scene in either the books or the movies where there was a church portrayed, not even in the background.

I think he's right, there are no churches throughout all of Middle Earth.

And I'd boot you 10 minutes into your lecture.

Then they're not humans and should not be called such. Yes, they do have to conform to how a "human" works otherwise it's not a human it's a Wizwagum. By changing things willy-nilly you rob players of agency as you impair their ability to understand cause and effect forcing them to just sit and bask in your awesomeness. Yeah, I'd have no interest in being at your table.

Tiki Snakes
2009-10-10, 07:33 PM
Then they're not humans and should not be called such. Yes, they do have to conform to how a "human" works otherwise it's not a human it's a Wizwagum. By changing things willy-nilly you rob players of agency as you impair their ability to understand cause and effect forcing them to just sit and bask in your awesomeness. Yeah, I'd have no interest in being at your table.

I think it's quite conceivable that Humanity, in a world which has actual gods and supernatural overbeings of various kinds, could lack that human need to make everything answerable to higher powers. It's not an impossible difference to say that organised religion, in that world, does not exist.

There are always going to be differences between Real World Humans and 'Humans' in fantasy settings, because Real World Humans do not exist in a fantasy world.

Raum
2009-10-10, 07:39 PM
And I'm not just talking D&D, hence why I'm using the more universal term GM, & not the D&D-specific term DM. I could use the WoD term Storyteller, or judge, or narrator, or referee, or director, or any other term for the GM in other games.
Here are some examples...
For a few examples of GMless games look up Mythic, Polaris, Universalis, Court of the Empress, Lexicon...etc. Others such as In a Wicked Age, Wushu, Mountain Witch, Capes, and many more significantly change participants' roles. I'm not advocating one or the other, but saying it doesn't or can't exist is like a child covering his ears and chanting "I can't hear you!"

There is a lot to RPGs beyond D&D and computer games. :smallwink:

Fiery Diamond
2009-10-10, 08:30 PM
Here are some examples...

Warhammer Quest

Necromunda

Wizwar

Magic the gathering

Rage

Mass Effect

Balder's Gate

I'm unfamiliar with most of these, but...
How the heck is Magic the Gathering an RPG? There's no roleplaying involved, just themed cards and setting information on them.
Also, a computer/videogame RPG (such as Balder's Gate) is not even the same kind of game as a pen-and-paper RPG.

Tyndmyr
2009-10-10, 08:35 PM
MTG is definitely not an RPG. Being fantasy based isn't enough to make something an RPG...you need persistant characters, at a minimum, and probably a lot more.

Necromunda...hmm, good case for it, yeah. Each player runs a small team instead of a single character, but you do name them all, track xp, stats, and gear for them all, and have a wild variety of possible scenarios. It definitely has a pretty strong RPG feel to it. I've played several games of that type, and no, definitely no GM necessary.

Raum did have a much more RPG focused list though, I believe.