Control...

(This is a slightly edited reply I put up to someone asking about "what I do" and why it is different from so many others. Enjoy!)

The biggest difference between everything I have seen is that I detach myself from emotional investment in the characters. I care only that my players act...I do not care what they do. I have tools at my disposal (including the skill of improvisation I have worked very very hard to develop) to generate content at will...and I have done the work to create a world around them full of beings.

See, I don't make adventures...my players, through their characters, seek them out...and the adventures are adventures because they delve into the unknown. The truly unknown. And they face the deadly. The truly deadly.

They do not have the parachute of an assumption that they are "protagonists"...because creating a fictional construct like that actually removes their heroic qualities. Heroes are not heroes because they are main characters...heroes are heroes because they overcome REAL ODDS in the challenges they face. They take real risks. When one separates themselves from their character like a figure in a fiction, you are robbing the player of real accomplishment because you have stacked the deck in favor of the character...and because it is not the PLAYER achieving these things, it is only the character because, again, you have already assumed they will excel.

That is a real danger. People play roleplaying games to accomplish meaningful things in an environment where risk exists...studies have supported this time and time again. Agency is what matters to players...they want their decisions to matter in the context in which they are made. Undermining that is very damaging to the core of play and it is insidious to boot...it can be so hard to notice.

The biggest difference between you and I, I suspect, is that I have done the work (either currently or in the past) to support my players doing as they please WITHOUT having to rely on them to content-generate. I do not need to use collaboration as a clutch to lessen my work-load because, for me, that work-load is minimal because of the skills I have developed...skills I'd never need (and therefore not really develop) by relying on aforementioned crutch. By doing that, it lets the players play only their characters and this lets them actually achieve against the unknown. They risk in real terms and they do so without the assumption that they are heroes in some meta-sense. That concept robs them of their heroic nature. Being heroic requires struggle...and struggle requires uncertainty. That uncertainty, if it is to be meaningful beyond pleasant stories, is required to be felt BY THE PLAYER not just by the character.

Foremost though, this all requires a DM that is able to relinquish a large amount of control. The funny part is, "partial collaboration" tells me that DMs using that style probably aren't actually prepared to relinquish control. After all, partial collaboration still gives the DM more narrative input than I myself have at the table. When I DM I do not suggest things to the players and anything that pops up does so with the understanding (as I have made plain to my players) that it "is what it is"...I give up all my control to the players to do as they please. I do not ask them for buy-in because I have nothing to sell them...THEY are selling me on THEIR actions...and I am buying anything they're selling.

This is terrifying to many DMs because it relegates the DM to mere video game console...you render the graphics and process the data. And boy is that a scary notion. Having to get the hell out of the way and let players do what they want without your say-so is absolutely horrifying to many because...well surely it will be anarchy! You won't know what to do! You'll screw up! Lose track! Be bad!

It's that fear that keeps people in the little DM paradigm-box...or makes people flee it and warp it into a different form of control...which, believe me, partial collaboration is. It is a different form of control where the control is consented to but, as I said, the DM still has more control than I do at my table. So, all people can do, is assume a bad DM under my style...because, of course, if I don't want them to do something I will just make it unnecessarily hard or improbable...or make it impossible all-together by some means. This is always what they resort to claiming...they have to assume a bad DM because it is the only way they can see control in my style...and they have a deep, visceral need to feel that control...because it is what they would seek if they were in my position. So they look for an "out" to make it inevitable that bad things would happen and control would re-assert itself in the form of a DM behind the scenes. It is all they know. The alternative is...frankly, scary to them.

The same can be said for players. Players are so used to working along the old garbage paradigm of "Go here, do this/follow plot, get reward" that they've come to defend it...it is all they know. They claim to "like" it but, of course, "like" is a spectrum starting at "barely tolerate out of lack of options" all the way up to "orgasmic delight"...yet the hobby dwindles constantly. If so many  people like the paradigm, why is it such a hard sell? Why is it losing out to MORE RESTRICTIVE mediums? The answer is, of course, because those tables are just as restrictive but it is felt even more pointedly because you are supposed to be able to do anything. Imagine that. ANYTHING. When that illusion is shattered (as it is in countless groups) it is very hard to get back. Even now, as I stated, I have veterans at my tables just barely starting to grasp that they, through their characters, really can shoot for the moon...that their destiny really is in their hands...and that they will succeed or fail, not because I want them to or because they are main characters, but because they succeeded or failed.

Terrifying notion. Absolutely paralyzing in some situations.

After all, these are people used to "go here, do that"...now it is "what do you do?"...and that infinite choice potential can be horrifying...especially initially when they think it is a trap and they are still working under an illusion of "wrong & right" choices based on what the DM has prepared.

The "what do you do?" however is not asked to characters via their players...but to the players via their characters. The characters have a big wide world in front of them rife with adventure and danger...and the risks and rewards are real to them....just as they are to the players because the construct is not one that is standing on quicksand. They cannot change the reality of it at will...they cannot enforce their player-will on it EXCEPT through their avatars. Again...that can be scary. Even more so when one assumes an emotionally invested DM.

Right now in one game the players are working to convert a bunch of orcs to their side after chatting up an orc-shaman prisoner...in an effort to form a small army and re-take a captured, deserted town. And why are they doing this? Because I set it up? Hell no. They are doing it because it is what their characters want to do...and they are not doing that based on desires as a player that we made manifest in the game...no, it is based on them roleplaying within the construct. They do not know if they will succeed. All they know is that it is possible...and it is possible because it is possible and either the dice or their own cleverness has made it so.

It's a slight difference between "can do anything" and "could do anything"...and that "could" makes all the difference. It is the uncertainty of the hero and of adventure. It is the benefit of making decisions constantly as a character in a world of fantasy rather than as a guy at a table that got out of his 9-5 to play a game...the former can have meaning to it and the latter is just a diversion. I will always take the former. There are those, however, that will argue so heavily that it is "just a game"...and sadly, they're right...for themselves..because it will never be more with that attitude. Their players will wander away and interest will dry up...stories will be about funny events or what someone thought up...not about legitimate personal investment and emotion. The pain of loss, for instance, is only pain when it is actual loss...

Hell, ever get a party emotional over the death of two orc NPCs? And the emotion was because it was how things went...it was life...not something I decided...or that they decided. It was all the unexpected highs & lows of life...because that is what the game should reflect at it's best.

Like I said though, that can be really scary...but we're supposed to be sitting down to be heroic, right? So what's a little scare...?

A reply about balance...

ABOUT BALANCE IN D&D...

Here's actually the problem... (and believe me, I know what I'm talking about)...

Want balance?

Rock, paper, scissor. That's balance.

This is also balance...

ROUND 1: FIGHT!

A mirror-match. Both players have the same options. Perfect & complete balance.

Balance could also be achieved in a game like Street Fighter (or at least as near as humans can perceive for balance) by having multiple characters all with the same reasonable ability to beat one another.

As this applies to D&D...is absolute bullshit.

See, the issue is, in something like Street Fighter, the game has ONE OBJECTIVE with a very rigid, systematic methodology for achieving it: use attacks to reduce your opponents life to zero.

This is not (repeat NOT) the case in D&D. Reducing HP to 0 is not the goal of D&D. D&D is not that simple of a game.

If every class is equally good at combat, that means that if a class is better in another aspect of the game then that class is IMBALANCED. Now, consider, that the game has infinite potential situations for classes/characters to engage in. Ergo, there are infinite opportunities for classes to be imbalanced. Therefore, obsessing over balance in the combat portion of D&D, is useless until the rest of the game is designed so as to support mechanical interaction so that it can be likewise balanced perfectly.

Otherwise the attempts to "balance" the classes are completely half-assed. Would it surprise me to know that the game has been undergoing half-assed design work for quite some time? Uhhhh...no not at all...

This is all <b>further</b> compounded by the fact that the average (vocal) game player is absolutely awful at mechanically playing games and even worse at recognizing what is (im)balance and what is their own suckiness.

Don't believe me? I've done QA for tabletop, card games, video games and board games. People are absolutely infantile when it comes to playing games. EVERYTHING that beats them is "broken". Anything they can't do is "unfair". And the whiners are the loudest.

Furthermore, they tend to myopically focus on one aspect of the game. In D&D's case, this is especially true as they zero in on combat and nothing else. This is further exacerbated by the build-methodology employed in the game design of, for instance, 3.0/3.5 where a class is less important than the component game options the class can choose from. That is why you can have an awful Fighter...and a competent one...or a useless Wizard or a competent one. And have it based ENTIRELY on decisions made to construct the character...the fact that the system allows characters to be built that do not even meet the systems own (asinine) combat design goals is proof of how over-designed it is.

Idiot players whined for more options, more choices and more power for their classes so that Fighters could equal Wizards without realizing that the <b>very concepts</b> used to make those classes mean that if a system is expanded and options are given the ONLY RESULT POSSIBLE is that the spell-casters will become more powerful. They were lucky that the designers were just as stupid as they were and listened to them...and the result was exactly what someone with half a brain for design would expect.

Then, this is YET AGAIN, compounded by the fact that many DMs run games like morons with no attempts at tactical acumen...and if they do, they get accused of being "unfair" and often back down. Wait...you mean if you leave the artillery untouched the ground troops will get obliterated? A BUH?!?

So, you have whining players demanding something that will only magnify the situation they are complaining about. They get what they claim they wanted...and when the "problem" arises even worse than before they take no responsibility for how they are running the game or any mitigating factors (like whining when someone is targeted "unfairly") and instead insist the game be "fixed" again. Hence we get 4th Edition which is, of course, all about "balance"...

And how did that end up going? Not so great...a game where the system intrudes on the reality of the game...where the logic of reality takes a back-seat to the system...and by design. And why? To pay homage to the unruly bitch "Balance". A system more combat focused than any other...and one where combat is boring and incredibly drawn-out.

Want proof that the designers don't know what they're doing with even basic progression-based game  mechanics? How many iterations and revisions did Skill Challenges go through? I think the last count was (legitimately) 17 or so. Yyyyyeah...

Combat has been fetishized. It has become an obsession of the system. This has added complexity but no elegance to combat. This complexity will always magnify imbalances. This focus has dominated the game to the point where all balance decisions are being drawn against combat...which is stupid and short-sighted.

Instead of looking to the 99% of reality left untouched by sound game design (leaving that up to blogs like this one...) the combat system has been expanded, bolted-onto, revised, "improved", "streamlined", bloated, fondled and consecrated...because it is easy. Because it is all they know how to do...and, because it is almost all that is presented to players, it is all players are familiar with.

And they lose. Every time. They lose because all this combat is handled far better by video games that only become more sophisticated with every generation. It is a losing battle. The designers are Germany marching into Russia without winter clothes. Idiotic. Futile.

They lose because they are focusing, instead of on the game and it's strength, on a minor subset of the game that was NEVER going to run as well (or be as balanced) as could be possible because it's still all math being done by human beings oftentimes without even a table and minis to do so.

D&D design will be back on track when there's more about worlds and reality and less about new ways to poke with a sharp stick.

Don't hold your breath. In the meantime people like Alexis should carry on...the work there is good, worthwhile and useful to a DM running a WORLD...which is probably exactly why it will never be published by anything officially connected to D&D.

The bigger picture part 2.5...DMs Anonymous

So, when last we left, I told you how players need to approach the game. That was...uh...right around here I think. Go check it out.

Let's start at the top with this post...and let's start by me shattering an illusion.

Many DMs see themselves as this...

Complex?! Hell no! It's simple!

And, if you think about it, it makes sense. You have ultimate power, you shape the world, you populate it...that means your God, right? No...you're this...

You see, the misunderstanding taking place is that the DM, at the table, is in an active role. On the contrary, one you sit down, you have to take on a passive role just like the NES. The game is loaded and the player picks up the control...at that point, you're supposed to act as nothing but the interface for the players. You are there for them to experience the world through. Remember, without a DM, there IS NO GAME because the players have no methodology to actually interact with the world.

Think about it...

What can the players do without the DM to validate action they take? At best, they can speak to one another...but they can't accomplish anything tangible in the world. They cannot shake, they cannot rattle, they cannot roll. It is this need for a DM that so many conflate with ultimate power. After all, this means the DM controls everything, right? No, the DM does not control the game any more than the NES system controls the game. Think about the controller...the controller of the video game system doesn't actually control the game. It is there as an interface for the PLAYER to make things happen in the game. Really, calling it a "controller" is a misnomer...it is just a convenient one.

Realize now that, without the players, no amount of design, effort or brilliance matters at all...it is the equivalent of a game console sitting, plugged in, turned on, with a game loaded...and no one to play it. The game cannot play itself. The NES cannot play the game.

That out of the way? We clear? You're not God. You're an interface.

Take the pill. It's good for you even if it's a bitter truth.

Embrace this fact. Embrace it and realize how empowering it is!

When one gives up worrying about being God they give up worrying about being infallible. It also lets you get rid of the insidious little game-killer called "intent". You see, the NES doesn't have any intent when you are playing it. It's only job is to run the game as flawlessly as it can. ALL that it need do is not crash, freeze or glitch.The game does not care if you play the game according to it's vision. It does not care if you use the flute to skip levels 2-4...

Seriously, try this shit in some games and the DM will flip his wig!

And why should it care? The player is playing and that is a win! Remember, you should not desire that the players do certain things...you should simply desire THAT the players DO THINGS. After all, if they're using my awesome advice (wink wink) they will be undertaking great, grandiose goals. They will not have to rely on you to spoon-feed them content. You will merely have to sit down, present the world...and then get out of their way so they can play.

This is, of course, where many DMs fail. They assume that the effort and work that they put in to create the games content, that complete authority, should continue when they sit down at the table. Guess what? Help me out with this one, Lex Luthor...

Ahhh the only good part of this film...

If you never take to heart anything else I put up on this blog that is okay...as long as you accept the fact that the act of DMing, when done correctly, is one of letting go of attachments. You have to be totally Zen Jedi with your material. Accept this: When you have created something and placed it into the world YOUR ROLE HAS ENDED. Let your players and their actions (or the dice) determine how and what happens after that. Will that require adjudication? Will it require logical deduction? Will it require knowing what people will do in given situations? Will it require being self-aware enough to realize when you should leave it up to the dice because you can't be fair? YES YES YES, a thousand times YES!

The hardest part of all of that though is letting go. You have to let go and allow what will happen to happen. It means you have to give up the joy of seeing intent acted upon and instead embrace the joy of seeing others acting upon their intent to interact with what you present. The DM must be the least selfish person at the table. They must be the person that wants to have the least attention on them. To many DMs that is a completely foreign concept. This...is the hard part...

Consider that a DM acts, first and foremost, as a referee and judge. Tell me, are the referees in football, basketball, soccer, wrestling or anything else...the center of attention? Do the cameras focus on the ref? Do the commentators speak of the referees constantly? Is the judge at a trial the center of attention? Is the jury focused entirely on the judge? Do the attorneys speak primarily to the judge? The answer to all of those questions is obviously no. With a DM is should be no different. You are not the center of attention...the GAME IS. As discussed previously, what moves the game? The players!

Learn from this duck!

You must be willing to fade into the background. The player does not think about the controller in their hands...the player does not consider the feelings or ambitions of the NES...the player does not care about these things nor should they. They are thinking about the content of the game...whether to attack...to flee...to choose to use an item. They discuss these options with other players...they debate...they argue. The NES shuts the hell up and lets them PLAY while doing it's best to make sure nothing goes wrong in the background.

The best part is, when you give up worrying about where the "story" will be twenty sessions from now, you free yourself up to make the game run as well as possible. You can make sure you know the rules. You can spend time fleshing out the players surroundings as they are NOW rather than as they must be in the future. After all, if you have no desires regarding the players actions there is no need for you to preordain what will happen. What will occur will occur.

Now, this post was originally supposed to be part 3 of this series...but I felt as if I needed to frame the mind-set a DM needs to have to succeed and to allow their players to thrive. Part 3 will be coming up soon.