PDA

View Full Version : The DM explaining the "ground rules"



Skorj
2010-07-06, 01:06 AM
After reading a good many of the "problem player" threads that pop up here from time to time, it finally occurred to me that the DM could really prevent a lot of trouble by simply explaining the "ground rules" of a role-playing game as he sees it, at the start of a campaign or when a new player joins.

This tends to come up naturally where it intersects the game rules, such as the DM's tolerance for clever builds and such, but I'm really thinking more about the non-rule stuff. I may have the opportunity soon to DM a group of people who have all played "computer RPGs" (mostly MMOs), but have never played in a traditional group setting. I'd like to give the new players some guidelines to avoid friction and encourage basic role-playing. Here's what I've come up with so far, but I'd really like to benefit from the collective experience of the forum!


Above all, this is collaborative story-telling. A good game will produce stories that you will retell for years, but this process requires that you engage with the game world. This isn't a computer game where you're limited to a narrow choice of actions, you have the freedom to be very creative (but please try to be creative in character).
Also keep in mind that, unlike an MMO, your actions will affect the world in lasting ways. For good or for ill, the NPCs are going to remember what you do, and given that society is used to adventurers running around, there will be some system to maintain social order even when powerful PCs get clever or crazy. You won't be the first group with character levels that the king, or the inkeepers' guild, has dealt with.
It's very important that the players work together to make this fun. That doesn't necessarily mean the characters will always work together, or that there won't be arguments about the best course of action, but if you are going out of your way to make someone else's gaming exprience less enjoyable, you're doing it wrong. We're here to entertain one another.
While there will be times when one person has the spotlight, or one person is unable to contribute, most of the time most of the players should be participating in whatever's happening. Never feel shut out of the action just because of numbers on your character sheet (unless you're actually dead or something): sometimes the best ways to contribute don't involve the central action, or don't involve rolling dice.
And above all: if you're bored it's OK to say so. If you feel the game is spending too much time on something you just don't enjoy, it's far better to ask the other players if they wouldn't mind hurrying up that part than to randomly fireball something just to see some action! This is doubly true if the game gets hung up on something out-of-character: if the evening is dragging because of things that could be handled outside the gaming session, it's OK to remind me of that.

Well, I'm not sure I've found the best words for what I'm trying to say, and I've probably left something important out. So, how would you preemptively explain what sort of player behavior will make the game fun vs not fun in a way that doesn't insult anyone? Or just explain role-playing to a group of MMO-ers who think it means "saying thee and thou".

EDITs - helpful ideas collected here so I don't forget them when the time comes. Thanks!

As the DM, ultimately I set the rules, so don't set too much store by the rule books. However, it's also my job to make the game fun, so I promise to do my best not to be inconsistant or arbitrary.
Arguments of any kind won't be settled by either shouting or repetition. If you can't convince the group (or the DM) with reasonable arguments, give up - it's a game, not a jury room.
If something doesn't make sense, it's OK to ask whether it makes sense to your character. If it seems strange or impossible in-character, that's a clue not a rules argument!

Raistlin1040
2010-07-06, 01:18 AM
I actually have such a list.


Rule 00: Have fun. It's a game.
Rule 0: Anyone is allowed to leave at any time with minimal questioning.
Rule 1 (and so on): Do not take anything in the monster manual for granted. ANYTHING.
The DM is the final word on disputes. Players can approach the DM post-session to discuss further.
The DM is required to hear out the above discussions.
Loot distribution is at the discretion of the party, but if it's bogging down the game, the DM may step in and delegate, or roll for it. Be Communists, guys.
Circumstance modifiers will be used, for DCs and interactions, at DM discretions.
If a character ever falls to Evil, or at least stops attempting to be Good/Neutral, the DM will take control of the character and play them as an NPC.
There is no Ressurection Magic (this is a campaign rule, not a gaming group rule).
Everyone has an equal say, in character and at the table.
The loudest player is NOT the only one who matters.
Metagaming is an offense punishable by book throwing.
Actually just don't do it.
It'll make sense later, DM's Honor.
RAI>RAW

Skorj
2010-07-06, 01:22 AM
There's some campaign-specific stuff in there, but it works for my campaings too, thanks! Also, 2 of those really stood out to me as "ground rules", so let me add them to the first post.

Raistlin1040
2010-07-06, 01:26 AM
Thank you. I'm actually going to take your list and add it (in abridged form) to my own, since all of my players are new, and I hope to soon have 2 more new players.

Stryke
2010-07-06, 07:37 AM
I also find that when your laying down these rules, it is also i good idea to ask such question as, "are you roleplayers or rollplayers" "are your role players or optimizers" "mystery and interege or smash in the door and go nuts" etc. It gets it all out into the open quickly and early. Also makes it easier to cater to the group.

ShadowsGrnEyes
2010-07-06, 09:44 PM
we do this for every new game. even when we're are playing with the same players. It's a good way to kick off your first character building session, before actual game play starts.

Our rule #0 has always been: the DM's word is law.
We're not crazy strict about this, it just sort of means DM is final arbiter on disputes and stuff..

other rules that found their way onto our official groundrules sheet:

Rule 5: the DM accepts bribes. . . (usually food. . . lol)

Rule 16: the answer to your next question is 42.

Rule??: If you disagree with the GM, see rule 0. .. or rule 5 . .

But seriously laying the groundrules for a game is an excelent way to avoid alot of bad-player misshaps.

Optimystik
2010-07-06, 10:30 PM
I also find that when your laying down these rules, it is also i good idea to ask such question as, "are you roleplayers or rollplayers" "are your role players or optimizers"

Stormwind at its finest.

Prodan
2010-07-06, 10:35 PM
I also find that when your laying down these rules, it is also i good idea to ask such question as, "are you roleplayers or rollplayers" "are your role players or optimizers"

Yes. Next question?

Math_Mage
2010-07-06, 10:36 PM
I also find that when your laying down these rules, it is also i good idea to ask such question as, "are you roleplayers or rollplayers" "are your role players or optimizers" "mystery and interege or smash in the door and go nuts" etc. It gets it all out into the open quickly and early. Also makes it easier to cater to the group.

Similar, but more appropriate:
-What is your preferred optimization level?
-How intensively do you like to roleplay?
-How much freedom of action would you like to have in the campaign world?
-What is your preferred balance between combat and social interaction and puzzles?

Basically, some variant on the Sixteen (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=46074). (scroll down to Appendix II)

Knaight
2010-07-06, 11:23 PM
I also find that when your laying down these rules, it is also i good idea to ask such question as, "are you roleplayers or rollplayers" "are your role players or optimizers" "mystery and interege or smash in the door and go nuts" etc. It gets it all out into the open quickly and early. Also makes it easier to cater to the group.

None of these things are opposed to eachother. Some clarification on the levels of each would be relevant (on roleplaying you have whether it is first or third person, time expenditure people are willing to give to conversations, how much you are willing to screw your character over with their negative traits, etc., on optimizing have a few sample builds for varying power levels, on mystery and intrigue see how happy people are with red herrings, politics, and backstabbing, etc.)

To Math Mage, those 16 are way, way too D&D focused.

Math_Mage
2010-07-06, 11:51 PM
To Math Mage, those 16 are way, way too D&D focused.

So just take the four questions I listed, then. The 16 are more for the DM to clarify things for the players than vice versa, anyway.

Talon Sky
2010-07-07, 12:15 AM
Rule 1: This is a game about story-telling, not 'winning' per say. Very rarely will I back you into a corner you cannot get out of if you use your brains, brawns, or a combination of the two. So don't worry about winning; just have fun.

Rule 2: The DM's final decisions are final. I don't care if your class is ubercheese awesome, if it doesn't exist in my world, it doesn't bloody exist.

Rule 3: Anything that does exist in my world is obtainable through legitimate means, not simply "I want to take a level in that!" If you've never met a monk, you cannot take a random level in monk. You need to be trained, grasshoppa.

Rule 4: Because I said so, I'm the DM. Didn't you read #2?

Rule 5: No, we do not do small/large sized weapons. Too easily abused.

And of course....

Rule 34: If it exists, there is a chapter in the BoEF for it.... ^_-

Satyr
2010-07-07, 02:30 AM
The Ground Rules:

We're not here to get, drunk, chill, or meet friends. These are all nice things, but they have their time and place. This time and place is not when and where we play.

This is not a democracy. This is a benevolent tyranny. The gamemaster is the tyrant. The players are his subjects. If you don't like it, go and run a game yourself.

The framework conditions and specific rules of the campaign are the result of an agreement between the players and the gamemaster. This agreement is as binding as the written rules, but way more important.

The quality of the game depends directly on the effort of all involved people. Effort and dedication to the game is appreciated; laziness, carelessness and lack of interest however is severely punished.

Players who don't know the rules are annoying; players who don't understand the setting are annoying; players who have no concept of interhuman relations and behavior are annoying. Don't. Be. Annoying.

If you act like an idiot, you are treated like an idiot.

Rules are a mean to an end: to accomplish the game. If they hinder or hurt the game, they will be bent, ignored or permanently changed.

You are not your character. Whatever happens to your character does not happen to you, so don't take it personally.

The verisimilitude of the game world is more important than the individual ideas of any single player. A stupefied game world hurts everyone, not just one player.

Optimystik
2010-07-07, 02:35 AM
1) If you can justify it, I'll probably allow it.
2) Have fun!
3) Snack breaks are mandatory.

AvatarZero
2010-07-07, 05:08 AM
Above all, this is collaborative story-telling.

Show me a DM who actually practices that, one who allows their fellow players to actually influence the story without slapping them down with DM fiat or restrictive rules, one who says "our story" and not "my story", and I will first thank you, then eat my hat. (Offer may not be valid outside the Greater London area.:smallwink:)

Also...



3) Snack breaks are mandatory.

Yes please. Not even lecturers expect people to focus on a single topic for six hours in a row.

9mm
2010-07-07, 09:17 AM
I actually have such a list.


It'll make sense later, DM's Honor.


Lies.


my general rules are as follow:

I'm the GM, and my rulings are final, you can appeal a ruling 3 times a month, at which point you are given 3 minutes to fully lay out your augemnts using the text of the books, so have them ready.

If I say I am running a modual be aware that means exactly that, you have a definitive plot, and I expect you to follow it.

If I say I'm winging it, be aware it means exactly that and mind the tumbleweeds of wonder.

all attempts to break the world will fail, those that suceed will unleash the 13 dragons teeth gang on your hides. (a few of my players have met them, and are absolutely terrified of them)

I allow all offical books open, however demand interparty power balance; please do not make me balance you through outside means as I am very unsubtle, advice however will always be given.

Any attempts at an arms race will result in me winning; so please don't start. If I have to work to keep things challeging, the results are quite messy

automatic dice rollers are your friends, and once your reach 5+ dice for a single effect I require you to use them, after the first time using it of course.

finally; if, for any reason, you are not having fun, TELL ME SO I CAN FIX THAT.

Yora
2010-07-07, 09:36 AM
Show me a DM who actually practices that, one who allows their fellow players to actually influence the story without slapping them down with DM fiat or restrictive rules, one who says "our story" and not "my story", and I will first thank you, then eat my hat. (Offer may not be valid outside the Greater London area.:smallwink:)
Me.

Of course, the players have to work with what I give them, but when they want something, I give them the opportunity to try it, without deciding beforehand, how it turns out.

Another_Poet
2010-07-07, 09:58 AM
I think that laying down the ground rules will do some good, especially with a new player or new group, to get them on the same page.

But honestly I don't think it will make much difference for the sorts of players who appear in the "problem player" threads. They are usually either total d-bags, or less than 14 years old, or both. There is no cure for a d-bag and the only cure 13 year olds is waiting till they're older.

Umael
2010-07-07, 10:05 AM
*points at signature*

These rules have worked fine for me.

Remember, KISS. Keep It Simple... you don't want a lot of ground rules, just a few that are flexible and sensible and cover all your bases.

AvatarZero
2010-07-07, 10:34 AM
Me.

Of course, the players have to work with what I give them, but when they want something, I give them the opportunity to try it, without deciding beforehand, how it turns out.

That's really not collaborative storytelling. Being open to suggestions about the story you're telling, while commendable, isn't really the same as letting other people around the table tell a story themselves.

Which is OK, because if you're playing DnD you're not playing a system which is good at collaborative storytelling; you're better off focusing your limited DM resources on creating interesting challenges and giving your players the chance to explore a world that works on self-consistent rules. First rule of optimizing: focus on your strengths. (Second rule: don't give up caster levels.:smallsmile:)

Bagelz
2010-07-07, 12:02 PM
on callaborative story telling:
It doesn't matter if the players control the flow of the game, as long they think they do.
For example I am working on a campaign now which it meant to appear very sandboxy (there are two goals or quests which i intend to last for levels 3-11). So they can go anywhere and talk to anyone to get more information about their quest.
It just so happens that regardless of which town they go to the first small village they visit will have a predetermined set of problems (sidequests) and information available, and the second small village they visit will have a different set. And the first time they go to a large trade center there is another set.

This way it looks like there is a complete adventure for each place they could visit, even though I'll be using the same encounters.

~bagelz
p.s. free will is a myth

jiriku
2010-07-07, 12:35 PM
Show me a DM who actually practices that, one who allows their fellow players to actually influence the story without slapping them down with DM fiat or restrictive rules, one who says "our story" and not "my story", and I will first thank you, then eat my hat. (Offer may not be valid outside the Greater London area.:smallwink:)


/takes a bow.

I have a nifty houserule IMC, borrowed from the Burning Wheel game, called Speak Authoritatively. Make a statement of fact about the game world that does not conflict with established facts, succeed on a relevant Knowledge or Profession skill check at a DC determined by a little chart, and your statement becomes true and is permanently part of the story. I only disallow its use if the players attempt to do something silly or disruptive with it. ("According to my Knowledge (local) skill, all gnomes are made of cotton candy!") My PCs have used Speak Authoritatively to create plot-centric NPCs, create monsters they want to fight, establish the existence of hideouts they use to lay low in, find item crafters and cohorts, and more. Good times.



To directly address the OP, I host my game in my house, and I give new players a brief speech.


"This is my home. It is a place of peace and happiness. Drama is not tolerated here. You are welcome here, and as your host I'll feed you and make sure you have a good time. If anyone does anything in my home to ruin your good time, you have my word that I'll immediately step in and put a stop to it, and eject the offender from the gaming group if necessary. I'd do the same for any other guest here."

I also give an attendance speech.


"I DO NOT LIKE flaky people. When you join our group, you're making a commitment of your time, and we're depending on you to keep your commitment. If you're 15 minutes late to the game and four people wait for you, you've just wasted an hour of our collective time. We'll treat your time with respect; please do the same in return.

"If you're late, we'll start without you. If you're late with no notice, then your character is opening all the chests and going first into every dangerous area.

"If you find you can't attend a game, let me know as soon as you know. If you tell me a week in advance that you'll be at your sister's wedding on game day, that's cool. If I have to call you 30 minutes after the start time and you tell me that you're playing video games or necking on the couch with your girlfriend, you probably won't be invited back."



I frequently encounter people who aren't accustomed to treating others with this level of respect and consideration. These "house rules" allow me to filter those people out very quickly and eliminate them from the group.

ShakeHandsMan
2010-07-07, 01:28 PM
Lies.


my general rules are as follow:

I'm the GM, and my rulings are final, you can appeal a ruling 3 times a month, at which point you are given 3 minutes to fully lay out your augemnts using the text of the books, so have them ready.

If I say I am running a modual be aware that means exactly that, you have a definitive plot, and I expect you to follow it.

If I say I'm winging it, be aware it means exactly that and mind the tumbleweeds of wonder.

all attempts to break the world will fail, those that suceed will unleash the 13 dragons teeth gang on your hides. (a few of my players have met them, and are absolutely terrified of them)

I allow all offical books open, however demand interparty power balance; please do not make me balance you through outside means as I am very unsubtle, advice however will always be given.

Any attempts at an arms race will result in me winning; so please don't start. If I have to work to keep things challeging, the results are quite messy

automatic dice rollers are your friends, and once your reach 5+ dice for a single effect I require you to use them, after the first time using it of course.

finally; if, for any reason, you are not having fun, TELL ME SO I CAN FIX THAT.

Out of sheer curiosity, player A rolls a level 10 monk, Player B rolls a level 10 wizard. How do you enforce balance without outright telling one of the two to play a different class?

Naia
2010-07-07, 01:53 PM
Show me a DM who actually practices that, one who allows their fellow players to actually influence the story without slapping them down with DM fiat or restrictive rules, one who says "our story" and not "my story", and I will first thank you, then eat my hat. (Offer may not be valid outside the Greater London area.:smallwink:)

One of my players once assassinated an Elector out of the blue, succesfully blamed another Elector of the deed and thus started a civil war, which in turn grew into a campaign for the party.

But to be fair, you can't run it like that all the time, if you want a coherent story and not just overall chaos.

MickJay
2010-07-07, 01:53 PM
I don't know about 9mm, but I would, depending on circumstances:
1) ask the wizard's player to pick his spells in a way that would not make rest of the party useless
2) give the monk an extra useful item or two
3) houserule a few things that make monks more powerful
4) all of the above.

If rules as written make the game less fun for anyone, they get ignored or modified until everyone's happy about them.

Kylarra
2010-07-07, 02:02 PM
Out of sheer curiosity, player A rolls a level 10 monk, Player B rolls a level 10 wizard. How do you enforce balance without outright telling one of the two to play a different class?depends on how B plays his wizard and a little on how A plays his monk.

Eorran
2010-07-07, 03:17 PM
Consider asking the player what sort of books & movies he's really enjoyed. Tell him what sources you're drawing on for your campaign, if you have such a thing in mind. A campaign inspired by Lord of the Rings is going to be (very)different than one inspired by Discworld, or one by Dracula. This might be a handy shortcut to the campaign flavour you want to convey.

Ask the player to come up with goals for the character. He doesn't need to have them all before the game starts, and he can change as they go, but the character should be an active part of the world, not just waiting for "roll initiative".

Similarly, get him to tell you what parts of the game are most fun for him. Consider getting this feedback from everyone at the same time, so they'll all know what the collective group wants. If one person's desires are different from everyone else, let him know he'll get his chance to shine a little less often.

Last, I'd tell him to expect "let me think about that for a moment" from me if he comes up with something I didn't anticipate. That's not me tryng to frustrate him, I just need that time to consider the ramifications.

AvatarZero
2010-07-07, 04:04 PM
/takes a bow.

I have a nifty houserule IMC, borrowed from the Burning Wheel game, called Speak Authoritatively. Make a statement of fact about the game world that does not conflict with established facts, succeed on a relevant Knowledge or Profession skill check at a DC determined by a little chart, and your statement becomes true and is permanently part of the story. I only disallow its use if the players attempt to do something silly or disruptive with it. ("According to my Knowledge (local) skill, all gnomes are made of cotton candy!") My PCs have used Speak Authoritatively to create plot-centric NPCs, create monsters they want to fight, establish the existence of hideouts they use to lay low in, find item crafters and cohorts, and more. Good times.

You, sir, deserve your bow. Also, good example of why Burning Wheel is a good storytelling game. Not sure how well something like that would work in a setting with dozens of books devoted to detailing it's world, but then Exalted is, like DnD, better at challenges and exploration than storytelling. Not that I'm thinking of any game in particular.


One of my players once assassinated an Elector out of the blue, succesfully blamed another Elector of the deed and thus started a civil war, which in turn grew into a campaign for the party.

But to be fair, you can't run it like that all the time, if you want a coherent story and not just overall chaos.

True, but a storytelling game isn't about coherent storytelling, it's about letting everyone have a go as narrator. Sometimes you'll get something coherent, sometimes someone will plant their heels and say "NINJA!" when you'd all agreed on this medieval knights-and-wizards theme, but the alternative is not letting someone play. Or, of course, playing a different sort of game, like one about challenges, exploration, and blah blah my lecturer told me I wouldn't get a first unless I learnt more theory so I'm reading up on the GNS model...

PairO'Dice Lost
2010-07-07, 06:22 PM
Show me a DM who actually practices that, one who allows their fellow players to actually influence the story without slapping them down with DM fiat or restrictive rules, one who says "our story" and not "my story", and I will first thank you, then eat my hat. (Offer may not be valid outside the Greater London area.:smallwink:)

*waves hand*

I do something like jiriku's Speak Authoritatively in most of my games, as well as simply speaking OOC with the players to determine what they'd like to see. Also, since I improv 99% of a campaign, I have a tendency to spawn off tons of plot threads from individual player actions; for instance, in one of the PbP games I'm running here at the moment, the general plot is mostly set (since the game was by request of one of the players, so I'm sticking to that as much as I can), but one of the players kicked off two sub-plots they'll run into later, instigated the current plot events, and effectively determined the BBEG for the rest of the game simply by shivving a particular tiefling in the back.

Knaight
2010-07-07, 06:36 PM
Show me a DM who actually practices that, one who allows their fellow players to actually influence the story without slapping them down with DM fiat or restrictive rules, one who says "our story" and not "my story", and I will first thank you, then eat my hat. (Offer may not be valid outside the Greater London area.:smallwink:)


Lets try myself and every GM I have ever played under with the exception of 1 (at a convention). For that matter, a decent amount of NPCs I have are player created, I play a system which allows the creation of coincidences by players and have made it far, far cheaper and more powerful than by default. Another game currently has two nations in a war who were not originally in it thanks to the manipulations of the PCs. Another game, highly corporate, has featured the removal of several companies. It wasn't even intended to be heavily corporate to begin with.

9mm
2010-07-07, 06:59 PM
I don't know about 9mm, but I would, depending on circumstances:
1) ask the wizard's player to pick his spells in a way that would not make rest of the party useless
2) give the monk an extra useful item or two
3) houserule a few things that make monks more powerful
4) all of the above.

If rules as written make the game less fun for anyone, they get ignored or modified until everyone's happy about them.

essentially; also modify enemies to be resistent to wizard tricks. glitterdust isn't all that useful if the enemies have blindsense.

Skorj
2010-07-07, 07:31 PM
Thanks for all the great ideas. Some comments along the way:


None of these things are opposed to eachother. Some clarification on the levels of each would be relevant (on roleplaying you have whether it is first or third person,...

Wow, I've never used the phrase "third person roleplaying" when describing roleplaying as "different from saying thee and thou" - great way of putting it!


...
The verisimilitude of the game world is more important than the individual ideas of any single player. A stupefied game world hurts everyone, not just one player.

Another great way of putting things. Not everyone cares about verisimilitude, but I don't know any other way to DM, so it's therefore really important to make it a ground rule.


1) If you can justify it, I'll probably allow it.


The upside for players for verisimilitude - it's the basis for justifying stretching of the rules (as opposed to "realism", which is a blind alley). Thanks.


Show me a DM who actually practices that, one who allows their fellow players to actually influence the story without slapping them down with DM fiat or restrictive rules, one who says "our story" and not "my story", and I will first thank you, then eat my hat. (Offer may not be valid outside the Greater London area.:smallwink:)


It's the only sensible way to have a long campaign IME. I tell new DMs this: "Spend some time and write the story of the future of your world without the players in it. It's really helpful to have that for times when they're not grabbing your plot hooks and you need to describe what's happening. But they key to an RPG is: the game is about how the players change that story, and how they change the world."



To directly address the OP, I host my game in my house, and I give new players a brief speech.


"This is my home. It is a place of peace and happiness. Drama is not tolerated here. You are welcome here, and as your host I'll feed you and make sure you have a good time. If anyone does anything in my home to ruin your good time, you have my word that I'll immediately step in and put a stop to it, and eject the offender from the gaming group if necessary. I'd do the same for any other guest here."

I also give an attendance speech.



Nice speech! I'll need to find a way to put that when it's not hosted at my house, but that's fine. Your attendance reminders are good as well, though I'll be dealing with older players who (one hopes) are beyond that sort of flakeyness, and more likely to miss due to a sick kid or work calling.


Consider asking the player what sort of books & movies he's really enjoyed. Tell him what sources you're drawing on for your campaign, if you have such a thing in mind. A campaign inspired by Lord of the Rings is going to be (very)different than one inspired by Discworld, or one by Dracula. This might be a handy shortcut to the campaign flavour you want to convey.

Ask the player to come up with goals for the character. He doesn't need to have them all before the game starts, and he can change as they go, but the character should be an active part of the world, not just waiting for "roll initiative".


I've been trying to find a way to say that briefly. "We need to all cooperate in staying in the same genre in our collective story," or something. But maybe it's best to spell it out. I find it helps to ask for in-character goals after giving the players a while to get used to the setting, but ask for "motivations" up front (abstractions such as "respect" or "power").




Similarly, get him to tell you what parts of the game are most fun for him. Consider getting this feedback from everyone at the same time, so they'll all know what the collective group wants. If one person's desires are different from everyone else, let him know he'll get his chance to shine a little less often.


That's a good point - it really helps reduce friction if each player understands what the others consider to be good fun.

Chrono22
2010-07-07, 07:32 PM
Show me a DM who actually practices that, one who allows their fellow players to actually influence the story without slapping them down with DM fiat or restrictive rules, one who says "our story" and not "my story", and I will first thank you, then eat my hat. (Offer may not be valid outside the Greater London area.:smallwink:)

That's really not collaborative storytelling. Being open to suggestions about the story you're telling, while commendable, isn't really the same as letting other people around the table tell a story themselves.

I allow players to influence the story without slapping them down and they do the same to me. We DM eachother (sometimes simultaneously), and when there is not total consensus the decisions lie to the person in our group who has the least to gain or lose from the result. Even a DM cannot be impartial. The best we can do is follow the advice of someone who isn't impartial, in favor of allowing EVERYONE at the table to have fun.
How do we retain the excitement for a player while allowing him to create his own "story"? Keep the details to a minimum. The player throws out a general idea, or ideas, and the other DMs work out the specifics for him in the course of play. How do we make challenging encounters/combats/puzzles? One again, effective information control is important. One DM orchestrates the encounter/puzzle/challenge with an eye to allowing the other two to find the solution, rather than playing a full role. His PC is relegated to NPC status until the situation resolves.
Would you like fries with that?


and blah blah my lecturer told me I wouldn't get a first unless I learnt more theory so I'm reading up on the GNS model...
Don't bother. It's full of false dichotomies, and is basically one big fallacy. You can enjoy Chess and Make Believe and Larping, and some people enjoy doing all three at once.

arrowhen
2010-07-07, 08:14 PM
Show me a DM who actually practices that, one who allows their fellow players to actually influence the story without slapping them down with DM fiat or restrictive rules, one who says "our story" and not "my story", and I will first thank you, then eat my hat. (Offer may not be valid outside the Greater London area.:smallwink:)

Just yesterday I made a comment on this very subject in a PbP game we're just starting out in. Allow me to quote myself...


I look at it like this. D&D is what it is: a traditional role-playing game with a heavy emphasis on character ownership and GM authority. Taken to the extreme, that means "The DM tells you a story and it's your job to shut up and listen until you're asked to roll some dice." There's nothing wrong with that style of play -- heck, who doesn't like being told a story? But my preferences lie in a more collaborative direction -- telling stories is fun, so why should I get to hog all the fun myself?

The thing is, D&D is not, and was never meant to be a collaborative storytelling game. It's a game about killing monsters in a cave. The farther you get from a game about killing monsters in a cave, the less good D&D is at providing the sort of game experience you're looking for -- a screwdriver makes for a really good screwdriver, an adequate hammer, and a really lousy toothbrush.

Because I like collaborative storytelling, I'm in favor of pushing D&D in a more collaborative direction, but you can only push it so far. Games do exist that were designed from the ground up to facilitate collaborative storytelling. They have actual rules systems for things like assigning narration rights. D&D has "you play your character, the DM plays everything else."

Games like D&D have their advantages, too. That sense of strong character ownership means that you get to experience the shared imaginary world firsthand, through the eyes of one of its inhabitants, rather than from the more inclusive but less personal point of view of an author. The strong GM authority means that you don't have to invent the challenges your character faces; there's room for surprise, since you're not the one both devising and solving your character's conflicts.

So for this game, I'd say let's keep things fairly traditional. Your main job is to portray your characters; my main job is to portray the rest of the world. But you're also free, if you want, to step back a bit from the lens of your character and lend a hand to the creation of that world.

In practical terms, if you want to introduce a minor NPC, go for it. If you want to describe details of your surroundings that I haven't already mentioned, go for it. Even though those are traditionally the DM's responsibility, I don't mind sharing.

But if you're going to introduce setting stuff, do it with an eye toward color and characterization. If you want to show how your character is spooked by the spooky forest, by all means talk about the spider webs hanging from the trees and the rustling sounds in the underbrush without waiting for my to do it for you. If you want to show how your character would react to a belligerent drunk or a lost child, you're totally invited to have a belligerent drunk or a lost child show up -- assuming that you're in a place where an NPC like that could reasonably appear. Who knows, something that you introduce as just a brief scene to illustrate a facet of your character's personality might inspire me to turn it into an important plot arc. Such is the joy of collaboration, even in a not-particularly-collaborative game.

But your primary means of influencing and creating the shared world is through the instrument of your character. You can add details to the world to help bring it to live, but if you want to advance the plot, do it through your character's actions. That's on the one hand a limitation, but on the other hand a very powerful tool. Your character is yours. No one else but you (barring mind-control magic and other game mechanical stuff) gets to decide what they do, or say, or think.

I'll do my best to ensure that your character's actions have a meaningful and appropriate effect on the parts of the shared fiction that I'm responsible for.

And I'll make sure you have plenty of caves full of monsters to kill.

Chrono22
2010-07-07, 08:28 PM
Meh. The (role playing) game is 90% what the players/GM make it, before any rules ever apply.
I think it's kind of annoying how people point out "you're doing it wrong" when you try to make D&D more than some hack & slash delve. What's wrong with liking the system? It does what I want, it has the feel I want, it serves my purposes. I've tried other systems, and tbh the majority of the ones that call themselves "collaborative" step on my toes and interfere far too much in the collaborative efforts of the players/GM.
One True Wayism is a bunch of garbage.

arrowhen
2010-07-08, 12:25 PM
Meh. The (role playing) game is 90% what the players/GM make it, before any rules ever apply.
I think it's kind of annoying how people point out "you're doing it wrong" when you try to make D&D more than some hack & slash delve. What's wrong with liking the system? It does what I want, it has the feel I want, it serves my purposes. I've tried other systems, and tbh the majority of the ones that call themselves "collaborative" step on my toes and interfere far too much in the collaborative efforts of the players/GM.
One True Wayism is a bunch of garbage.

I agree with your initial statement, although I would contend that 90% is way too high. In my experience, at least, the set of rules a group uses does have a large impact on how that group plays and creates together. In my case, I've seen the exact same group, with the same GM (me), playing the same genre adopt a markedly different social dynamic and creative process when switching from D&D 3.5 to True20 -- even though in terms of basic mechanics those games are nearly identical. Conversely, when we switched DMs and campaigns within D&D 3.5, we played in pretty much exactly the same way, even though the other DM and I had very different DMing styles. Forge theory might be a garbled pile of pretentious suck, but it's right about one thing: System Does Matter.

When you use D&D for something other than killing monsters underground, you're not "doing it wrong", but you are using a tool for something other than its intended purpose. Ain't nothing wrong with that.

DragoonWraith
2010-07-08, 12:27 PM
*points at signature*
If you hadn't pointed it out, I was going to. I think Umael's sig basically covers everything.