A final word to the Dungeon Master from the authors. These rules are intended as guidelines. No two Dungeon Masters run their dungeons quite the same way, as anyone who has learned the game with one group and then transferred to another can easily attest. You are sure to encounter situations not covered by these rules. Improvise. Agree on a probability that an event will occur and convert it into a die roll — roll the number and see what happens! The game is intended to be fun and the rules modified if the players desire. Do not hesitate to invent, create and experiment with new ideas. Imagination is the key to a good game. Enjoy!
Mince Pie Fest 2024: M&S Collection
-
I do not like the pastry on these mince pies at all. AT ALL. Crunchy and
far too sugary (which doesn't help with the crunch), I suppose at least
it's not t...
%202.png)
.JPG)
.jpg)
.png)
.jpg)
Posts
Warning: my dogma-o-meter is slowly getting readings in regards to this.
ReplyDelete"You are sure to encounter situations not covered by these rules. Improvise. Agree on a probability that an event will occur and convert it into a die roll — roll the number and see what happens!"
ReplyDeleteThat describes my D&D games to a T. Outside of basic combat and saving throws, virtually everything else is made-up on the fly:
Player: I try to make a running leap and land on that 1' shelf.
DM: Hmmmm, OK. [Here I'm quickly thinking to come up with a reasonable DM fiat.] You have a 42% chance. Roll!
This sort of play makes skills, feats, and all that sort of thing completely superfluous.
@ Settembrini: Please elucidate. What exactly are you getting "readings" in regard to? Jeff posted a quote from a 30 year old version of the game. What exactly is dogmatic (by definition of the word) in such an action?
ReplyDeleteNotable words from the quote include "agreement", "improvisation", "imagination"...All of these words would seem to oppose the application of a dogma. To whit: I see no indications of Jeff espousing:
1) an authoritative tenet or code of such tenets (ie: a ONE TRUE WAY)
2) an authoritative view without adequate grounds of proof.
Do you mean by the act of POSTING a quote he MUST be implying his "dogma" on everybody else? If so, that is called projection of one own's opinion sir, not evidence that would support a "dogma-o-meter" reading.
That's my motto. I wish it were WotC's.
ReplyDeleteWhat happened? Where did it all go wrong? -Sob-
I think there's two kinds of gamers:
ReplyDeleteA) ones for whom this way of doing things pretty much always worked and so it sounds just fine to them
and
B) ones who, at some point, (probably when they were young) had a big argument with their fellow players or GM about this and it was traumatic and they spent the rest of their gaming lives trying to figure out how to write games that got around it.
I didn't ieven realize there were any Type B people until I started reading stuff on the internet.
I'm still trying to define my DM'ing preference - that is, using 1st Edition AD&D, but not using about 75% of the stuff (mainly in the DM guide and UnE. Arcana.)
ReplyDeleteBut back in my "3 booklets" days, we had to do so much on the fly.
Sometimes I think that tournement games back in the day were the worst thing to happen to D&D.
I really need to go back and re-read the Holmes edition sometimes soon. These little snippets of wisdom are things that I've forgotten over the years, which is a shame.
ReplyDeleteAs an aside, I am proud to announce that my C&C group joined the Order of the d30 last night. Woo hoo!
@Zak.S: I first spotted 'type B' systematisers when I started to read "Dragon" (the Forum section was always rife with them). I then watched as the lunatics took over the asylum and turned D&D into a hideous mish-mash of inscrutable legalese and nonsensical holy writ (yeah, that edition).
ReplyDeleteLife's too short for rule squabbles.
"Shut up and play!" ;)
I find these sorts of ideas break down badly in many situations because players feel like it's DM fiat, and they are trapped into the DM's version of events, rather than a world where they have any say over how things happen.
ReplyDeleteMost players get understandably irate if they don't have any sense that they can plan strategies according to their strengths because the DM will just assign an arbitrary probability to events. It's not so hard to generate a few skills and roll over a number. I'm not sure why we should privilege combat (which uses this method in old systems) over skills - isn't combat just a skill?
As an aside, I am proud to announce that my C&C group joined the Order of the d30 last night. Woo hoo!
ReplyDeleteRock, rock on!
I'm totally with Geoffrey on this, That's exactly what I've allways done. When I run into a situation not covered by any chart or mechanic I can think of immediatly, I ball-park it. Whats the player want to do? What are the factors involved? Then whats the logical probability of success? I give them a number to roll under and the game proceeds. I never got any resistance from players about this, but when I think about it, They didn't know what I was consulting or not from behind the screen. And the fact is , they don't need to know. I'm not an adversarial, or killer DM. I'm an adjudicator. Istus is my co-pilot.
ReplyDelete@faustusnotes: I understand what you're saying...and I agree, to a certain extent. But, I do think that a DM who adheres to a semi-logical and consistent treatment of actions goes a long ways towards eradicating both of the scenarios you've suggested.
ReplyDeleteTrusting the DM is a pretty basic tenet of nearly any RPG w/ that kind of relationship. (player / GM) That kind of trust must be earned of course.
In the end we're talking about two different kinds of players.(DM "fiat" v. hard-coded rule parameters) I've played both and I know what I prefer, which is likely the same for all of you. But, that said, I can have fun either way.
Re. Zak S.
ReplyDeleteI think there are wayyyyy more than 2 types of gamers. And I'm certain very few of them actually fit the narrow, emotionally crippled straw-man you describe.
re. Gamerdude
ReplyDeleteFirstly... That is an AWESOME screen name. The mind boggles at the number of people who must try to get that screen name on Blogger every day and silently curse you!!!
Now...
"In the end we're talking about two different kinds of players.(DM "fiat" v. hard-coded rule parameters)."
Once again you're describing a binary gaming universe that just does not exist in real life. In real life GM's who run D&D 3.5, or even more complex systems, make GM Fiat decisions every night. In real life old school gamers create their own complex sets of house rules because they have found them enjoyable. And lots of games in between. In every case one hopes that the players and GM come to an amicable agreement on the ruleset to be used. So they can have fun. Which is the point.
I agree with Blotz on this one, although with fewer rules, older systems tend to have more house rules and DM fiat than newer, rules heavy RPG's.
ReplyDelete“Most players get understandably irate if they don't have any sense that they can plan strategies according to their strengths because the DM will just assign an arbitrary probability to events.”
ReplyDeleteIf a player is feeling this way, it isn’t because of a lack of rules. It’s because the DM is being a jerk or the player is over-reacting. In the end, you can’t fix these problems with mechanics. You fix them with maturity and experience.
Note that he wrote (emphasis mine, of course): “Agree on a probability...”