Social media has directed me to a satire article on Hard Times:
"D&D Group Overthrows Dungeon Master in Favor of Dungeon Democracy"
It's one of those items that's supposed to make me chuckle, yet part of me just goes, "You fools, you'll ruin it for all of us!"
I've never gotten the whole "Evil DM vs the players" angle, yet, at the same time, I feel the whole kumbuya Cooperative Role-Play full of nothing but "Yes-ands" is nothing more that an emotional variant of the Monty Haul (RIP). In fact, for every "Yes-and..." campaign podcast with a cast of professional improv players where freeform play works around the plot points, there are one hundred games that are the gaming equivilant of "everyone gets a participation trophy."
Despite a very overt GM vs Player angle, Hackmaster 4th Edition did not attack the players, it focused on punishing poor logic or negative gameplay. Even the idea of the grunge monster wasn't a punishment to over-successful players, it was a balancing act against overpowered PCs who had ransacked an underwhelming and ultra-rewarding campaign.
That's not to say that GMs should be portrayed at absolute monarchs behind the screen. Even the filthiest despot knows how to play their populace, giving them just enough to placate their measely desires, all the while aspiring to achieve their own campaign goals.
And sometimes, the easiest way to prevent your players from grabbing pitchforks and torches is to ban pitchforks and torches from the campaign.
As graduation approached, the days of my college campaign were wrapping up, and with the ensuing release of D&D 3rd Edition, I used my GM dictatorial powers to appoint my replacement for the next on-campus campaign. I chose Nate (Norm and Dr Millheim from the actual plays), got him set up with the rules, and some extra material. Like a Venezualan dictator, I could fade into the next realm, confidant my successor would have some success.
It was an unmitigated diaster, no matter how much fun the players had.
I'll chalk it up to inexperience with DMing and the new system, but a fairly low-key campaign soon followed the adventures of a delusional character who believe that his wagon was a pirate ship, the steeds were his dolphin protectors, and the land the vast sea....
It was Steve (Echelon, Ozark, and O'Hara from the actual plays). Nate gave his ideas carte blanche.
Never give carte blanche rulings on Steve. Give him the rope, but make sure he knows it's around his neck before letting him loose.
And on the opposite side of the equation, in a future Risus IOU session, I let the entire group go wild after the asking one new player one simple question to start the session "What does your character see in the field." Chaos ensued, but the answer allowed them to run rampant in a fish bowl while the ocean surrounded it on all sides.
Now that this sad little rant is over, back to our regularly scheduled programming.... hopefully.
"D&D Group Overthrows Dungeon Master in Favor of Dungeon Democracy"
It's one of those items that's supposed to make me chuckle, yet part of me just goes, "You fools, you'll ruin it for all of us!"
I've never gotten the whole "Evil DM vs the players" angle, yet, at the same time, I feel the whole kumbuya Cooperative Role-Play full of nothing but "Yes-ands" is nothing more that an emotional variant of the Monty Haul (RIP). In fact, for every "Yes-and..." campaign podcast with a cast of professional improv players where freeform play works around the plot points, there are one hundred games that are the gaming equivilant of "everyone gets a participation trophy."
Despite a very overt GM vs Player angle, Hackmaster 4th Edition did not attack the players, it focused on punishing poor logic or negative gameplay. Even the idea of the grunge monster wasn't a punishment to over-successful players, it was a balancing act against overpowered PCs who had ransacked an underwhelming and ultra-rewarding campaign.
That's not to say that GMs should be portrayed at absolute monarchs behind the screen. Even the filthiest despot knows how to play their populace, giving them just enough to placate their measely desires, all the while aspiring to achieve their own campaign goals.
And sometimes, the easiest way to prevent your players from grabbing pitchforks and torches is to ban pitchforks and torches from the campaign.
As graduation approached, the days of my college campaign were wrapping up, and with the ensuing release of D&D 3rd Edition, I used my GM dictatorial powers to appoint my replacement for the next on-campus campaign. I chose Nate (Norm and Dr Millheim from the actual plays), got him set up with the rules, and some extra material. Like a Venezualan dictator, I could fade into the next realm, confidant my successor would have some success.
It was an unmitigated diaster, no matter how much fun the players had.
I'll chalk it up to inexperience with DMing and the new system, but a fairly low-key campaign soon followed the adventures of a delusional character who believe that his wagon was a pirate ship, the steeds were his dolphin protectors, and the land the vast sea....
It was Steve (Echelon, Ozark, and O'Hara from the actual plays). Nate gave his ideas carte blanche.
Never give carte blanche rulings on Steve. Give him the rope, but make sure he knows it's around his neck before letting him loose.
And on the opposite side of the equation, in a future Risus IOU session, I let the entire group go wild after the asking one new player one simple question to start the session "What does your character see in the field." Chaos ensued, but the answer allowed them to run rampant in a fish bowl while the ocean surrounded it on all sides.
No comments:
Post a Comment