What kind of advice should DM/GM guides give?

[shadzar]

2) As I mentioned before, Shadzar seriously cannot wrap his head around the idea that player interest and DM interest do not have to run counter to each other.

what you don't understand in your fucking DM v Player war you want to perpetuate is i never said anything like that. but your small mind cant wrap around that though you big mouth can wrap around a barrel of cocks quite easily.

DM interest and player interest have nothing to do with each other outside of 1 simple thing. the game being played.

this does NOT mean the DM is the property of the players, nor does it mean the players MUST play with any DM.

when, as a player, i game i game with certain DMs because their ability, story ideas, etc. i expect the DM do make the decisions of what will be going on, and expect certain things to not exist in the game. the DM can do what the hell he wants within those bounds. that is why some people i wouldnt be near when they run a game, and others i would join if asked. my interest as a player is the game, not some rapier wielding swashbuckling fop like others that ARE anti-DM around here.

Spock put it best: "The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few, or the one."

the DM is serving the needs of the many, the player can most only serve the needs of the one.

if a player is wanting something so specific from a game that is pretty much a generic as you can get, then THEY should be running it, but they should not put the expense of the others to have to pay for that rapier wielding swashbuckling fop that is the only thing they can imagine to play.

a guide MUST NOT assume that everyone is of the exact playstyle and story level of enjoyment, but must set for the DM to be able to handle a mix of the varieties and be able to make them work together, within the DM's own acceptable tolerances. it is really that simple.

again you sound like you don't understand that a DM should have fun too, and want to force more things like eBerron and warforged into every game like the moron Mearls.

not every DM has to run eBerron, or Birthright or whatever setting, nor does doing so make them a "good" DM. a bad DM is one that doesn't enjoy what they are doing, not that a good DM can play in any setting. so i will cut that shit off before it begins again from those idiots around here that think a good DM is only one that will pamper the players in any way and just love any shitty setting because the players love it. DMs arent lemmings like the majority of the human race is.

You do not have to meekly submit to a jackass GM but GM's word IS final in a typical RPG. If you walk to a door and fall to a pit because GM says so then you will not tell him that he is wrong about the pit. You will tell him that he is wrong about not allowing a Reflex save. If the GM claims that this particular pit trap does not allow a Reflex save for reason X then you can argue with him and a good GM will listen. However, if you cannot convince the GM then his interpretation will ultimately prevail. Not because a GM is always right but because there is no way you can effectively overrule a GM without destroying the game he is GMing. That is, you can argue but in the end you either accept GM’s rulings or you tell him to fuck himself and start a new game without him.

I do not disagree with you that if you cannot convince the GM he is wrong, you have reached an impasse (which will often result in the breakdown of the game). Note that this does not mean that 'his interpretation will prevail'...if the entirety of the party disagrees with the GM, and he refuses to alter his ruling, he is essentially shooting his gaming group in the head out of spite.

Can you not see how 'advice' which tells the GM "Your word is final, you are the arbiter in your game" completely encourages the GM to never change his mind or listen to reason, and instead hold the game hostage because "I'm the Boss!"?

to some... the words you neglected to add. in the case of reaching the door, the players have no say. they now have an interaction to play out and figure out WHY they didn't reach the door, but in the end, the DMs job is to keep the game going. he CAN allow some discussion IF warranted, but NO DM guide will ever be able to list all cases where that is warranted to halt the game, and is left up to the DM and the group to decide. otherwise it is like Mearls telling you how you must DM D&D even though he has never met you or gamed with you, and your DM guide ends up as shitty as every other book WotC has produced for D&D, and adventures that are railroads likie everything including this Dragonspear thing from GenCon last weekend.

so the discussion can also hold the game hostage and the DM hostage as well. so where do you draw the line? in most cases, the DM has final say, you play the game, and debate after in other free time that you may have, not the time allotted for playing the game. it is an adventure game afterall, not a rules-lawyering game or court room simulation.

[Kuri Näkk]

Note that this does not mean that 'his interpretation will prevail'...if the entirety of the party disagrees with the GM, and he refuses to alter his ruling, he is essentially shooting his gaming group in the head out of spite.

It is irrelevant who is the jackass: GM or the player(s). However, I guess that I may have not used the best wording. One could say that neither opinion prevails in a disagreement: the game just disintegrates.

Can you not see how 'advice' which tells the GM "Your word is final, you are the arbiter in your game" completely encourages the GM to never change his mind or listen to reason, and instead hold the game hostage because "I'm the Boss!"?

I can see this. However, not telling this in a more soft or subtle way is just as bad. I have seen enough players with boardgaming background who have trouble in understanding that the position of GM in an RPG is very different from a typical dungeon crawl boardgame. You have to explain the difference.

An incompetent “I am the boss!” GM can be very irritating. However, in my limited experience there are far more incompetent players who insist on an interpretation only because it suits their particular need in a particular situation. You do not want to encourage them either. Arguing about rules is always disruptive of the gameplay and seldom productive.

[Desdan_Mervolam]

Players who try to spin the rules to their benefit on a moment-to-moment basis are bad players and are bad regardless of whether the game being played is Settlers of Cataan or Dungeons and Dragons. I have never played with a group that would tolerate it if a player glommed onto a rule-interpretation to win one game, and then when the game is reset for another round clings to an incomparable ruling just because the new hand they have favors it. Even when there's wiggle room with a board game, the people playing it try for consistancy at least within that table.

Unless the game is Munchkin, of course. But that's the point of Munchkin.

[OgreBattle]

The DMG should reveal the math of the game and how encounters should be structured for the desired effect.

Things like accuracy/damage rates compared to monster durability, so shit doesn't drag on too long, and rocket launcher tag is there only if you want it.

If there are "You must be this tall" barriers in the game, the DMG should highlight at around what point they become relevant.

[sabs]

There should be an essay on how to get more blowjobs. That seems important for a GM guide.

[Krusk]

Note that this does not mean that 'his interpretation will prevail'...if the entirety of the party disagrees with the GM, and he refuses to alter his ruling, he is essentially shooting his gaming group in the head out of spite.

It is irrelevant who is the jackass: GM or the player(s). However, I guess that I may have not used the best wording. One could say that neither opinion prevails in a disagreement: the game just disintegrates.

And when all the players say "You are a fucking jackass" but decide they want to continue the story, one of those players picks up DMing. Like I said happens.

The game doesn't end just because the DM declares it does. If the DM says "Fine I'm taking my ball and going home" everyone else says "Good get out" and one guy scoots over a chair and keeps the game going. "Ok, so actually rocks didn't fall, and you don't die. That douche NPC hari-kari's himself, and you continue whatever you were doing".

Now, if the DM is a jackass, AND all the players also happen to hate the current campaign then sure it can end when he storms out. "Good that jackass is gone, lets do a new game that isn't awful". But thats because the players and the DM decided to end the game. Those aren't necessarily reliant on one another.

[Kuri Näkk]

And when all the players say "You are a fucking jackass" but decide they want to continue the story, one of those players picks up DMing. Like I said happens.

This has never happened in the games I have played. I suppose that it is possible in very simple games where GM uses an official adventure as written. However, I doubt that many groups play this way.

[TheFlatline]

It's a god damn game let people play it. Metagaming is a major part of gaming and only the stupider edge cases are bad things. Players talking to each other about what they should do in tactical combat is a GOOD THING.

O.o That's the first time I've seen an argument in favor of massive metagaming when there's an easy, in-character solution.

And far from getting complaints, I've gotten compliments from most of the games I've run to take things like that into account. It reduces the amount of quarterbacking that combats can degenerate into- where one person basically runs the combat and tells everyone else what to do.

Besides, hyper-optimized combat is boring. The fun stuff is when plans go to shit and you have to adapt and carry on.

But you're right, maybe I'm missing out on the thrilling fun of 15 minutes of real-time tactical discussions mid-combat.

[PoliteNewb]

Can you not see how 'advice' which tells the GM "Your word is final, you are the arbiter in your game" completely encourages the GM to never change his mind or listen to reason, and instead hold the game hostage because "I'm the Boss!"?

An incompetent “I am the boss!” GM can be very irritating. However, in my limited experience there are far more incompetent players who insist on an interpretation only because it suits their particular need in a particular situation. You do not want to encourage them either. Arguing about rules is always disruptive of the gameplay and seldom productive.

Yes, jackholes are everywhere and can ruin games, news at eleven.

You seem to be saying that in your experience, incompetent players are the problem much more often then incompetent DMs, true/false?

I disagree...but it's really irrelevant, because we are discussing a guide for DMs, not for players.

No matter how good a DM is, he shouldn't need advice on how to deal with dickheads, or require some sort of iron-fisted rule in order to prevent players from being dickheads. "Don't game with dickheads" is a pretty simple rule for players and DMs alike to follow.

What I am trying to avoid is a supposed "DM Guide" encouraging the DM to be a dickhead, in the name of preventing player dickery.

[Kuri Näkk]

You seem to be saying that in your experience, incompetent players are the problem much more often then incompetent DMs, true/false? I disagree... but it's really irrelevant, because we are discussing a guide for DMs, not for players.

Apparently our experiences differ. However, are you saying that an advice that "DM's word is final!" belongs to DMG but an advice that "Players should not argue with the DM!" does not because it concerns players? What a fine distinction, I am impressed.

What I am trying to avoid is a supposed "DM Guide" encouraging the DM to be a dickhead, in the name of preventing player dickery.

I liked the earlier wording of the same (?) idea much better, so I will try to respond to this again:

Can you not see how 'advice' which tells the GM "Your word is final, you are the arbiter in your game" completely encourages the GM to never change his mind or listen to reason, and instead hold the game hostage because "I'm the Boss!"?

I do not actually agree that it completely encourages the GM to never change his mind. I considered it hyperbole, was I wrong? I can see how such advise can encourage stubbornness on the part of GM but that’s it.

In short, I think that if a player disagrees with GM’s ruling he can definitely say so and argue his case. However, rules discussions are disruptive of the gameplay and should not be encouraged. To this end the DMG could say something along these lines: “When a player and GM disagree about rules they should try to find a compromise as quickly as possible and move on. If a compromise cannot be quickly reached during the game then the GMs word is final but the compromise has to be reached between the sessions. GM always works with and never against players.”

[Artless]

Not responding to anyone in particular, just voicing observations.

In my experience there's nothing actually unique, in total, about the position of MC compared to the players, so there's little point in creating a distinction. The voice of authority lies in consensus, and is neither the responsibility nor privilege of any individual at the table.

If there is anything particular to the position of MC that isn't applicable to everyone playing, it's that they are asked to respond to inputs more often than the others simply due to the dynamic established in most games where one person handles the character of "the world." That gives them more opportunity to steer the course of the game, but at no point does that make their inputs worth more than the players. They are as subject to contest or refutation as anything else said during the course of the game. The same holds true for rules disputes. The MC is not the sole arbitrator, they can't and shouldn't expect that the players will abdicate that duty simply because the MC wears a different hat than they do.

It'd be more useful to just act like the role of the MC doesn't even exist, and just print out advice for everyone playing the game. In which case, it could all be summed up in a couple pithy phrases, as far as I'm concerned:

Measure your expectations, learn to compromise. You're adults, you can talk about stuff without it becoming a federal fucking issue. But above all, have fun and help others have fun.

It'd actually help to also try to dispel notions of authority that have been established in the past, as that will absolve the role of MC of some responsibility it's assumed to have, while also encouraging more active engagement on the players' part in ensuring the game runs well. It takes everyone at the table to make sure the game is fun, and I think redefining what being the MC means would go a long way in helping to ensure that everyone participates.

[PhoneLobster]

O.o That's the first time I've seen an argument in favor of massive metagaming when there's an easy, in-character solution.

What solution because what you proposed was a skill tax for letting people say "ooh maybe you should fire ball that guy!". That isn't a solution that is a problem.

It reduces the amount of quarterbacking that combats can degenerate into- where one person basically runs the combat and tells everyone else what to do.

And no, it fucking doesn't. It simply requires everyone to pay a quarter backing skill tax... and then still lets that happen with absolutely no impediment.

Even if they DON'T pay the skill tax that lets them do the "Massive metagaming" of saying "oooh shoot him... NOW!" they can STILL degenerate into "quarter backing" because that is STILL potentially desirable/beneficial/equally likely to happen even IF the enemy can hear it and understand it completely, because them knowing what you are doing is LESS of an issue than your group NOT knowing what they are doing.

But you're right, maybe I'm missing out on the thrilling fun of 15 minutes of real-time tactical discussions mid-combat.

As ALREADY MENTIONED in the post you are replying to, and again just now, you don't get to say that because your "solution" does nothing to stop people taking 15 mintues of real time tactical discussions in mid combat.

In fact it ADDS to the time costs because now they all need to organize which fucking in game language they are using, they need to change it, and talk about changing it, in game, when they confront differently multi-lingual enemies, they need to add planning and administration time to LEARNING more languages and organizing for everyone to pay the fucking skill tax and put it on their sheets.

In battle communications could be interesting and acceptable in a game, what ISN'T interesting and acceptable behavior is when a bullshit GM says "No, you guys have trained and fought and worked and lived together for ages, maybe even years, but you MAY NOT EVER simply assume that is an excuse for characters to have internal organization equivalent to what you might impart by a little simple metagame tactical discussion!"

You are SERIOUSLY proposing that players have to pay a skill tax in order to for instance get the fighter to flank a target for their rogue buddy. Because what? Just because its "bad" that players are talking to each other out of character for something EASILY explainable as "the characters are pretty smart and train/fight together a lot".

[infected slut princess]

The hilarious PhoneLobster vs TheFlatline debate raises a question about when the players are talking as characters or as themselves. Which is actually sort of interesting. Generally it seems to be a pretty intuitive thing. If a Player 1 says to Player 2 "I am going to fly over the regiment of Doom Warriors and hit the Doom General with my death ray!", I think most DM's would assume that is a player-to-player act of speech. But it could easily be something Character 1 says to Character 2 at the same time.

TheFlatline's "if you talk during combat at all, your characters literally say what you say unless you state otherwise!" is one of the funniest house rules I've ever heard. I've never heard anyone be such a nazi about it.

A DM could apply this funny rule to all parts of the game as well. During an important diplomatic event, the players might say, "What should we tell this totally smokin' princess for the ideal outcome, preferably involving penetration omg lol" Should the DM assume that is said "in character in a language everyone understands"? That would probably make almost all the cool storytelling possibilities fall apart.

You could totally have a rule in a game that said all player talk about the stuff in the game is assumed to be in-character unless stated otherwise. It would probably make a really fucked up game in most cases.

[Krusk]

And when all the players say "You are a fucking jackass" but decide they want to continue the story, one of those players picks up DMing. Like I said happens.

This has never happened in the games I have played. I suppose that it is possible in very simple games where GM uses an official adventure as written. However, I doubt that many groups play this way.

I personally stepped up in june when my main group had a new guy join and say he was an awesome dm. in reality he was a jackass. He had a custom world and a custom plot. His god npc killed itself and we turned it into a fun game. I dmed 4 or so sessions and wound the plot down. (Was also the first time we've ever had a dm literally storm out mid encounter and never be heard from again)

Back in November we had a friend try to dm and she immediately power tripped. We shut her down after a session and someone else dmed the rest of that campaign. Also custom world custom plot. SHe continued playing because we did it nicely.

I highly recommend next time a Dm quits playing without them instead of just letting them End your fun.

[wotmaniac]

TheFlatline's "if you talk during combat at all, your characters literally say what you say unless you state otherwise!" is one of the funniest house rules I've ever heard. I've never heard anyone be such a nazi about it.

A DM could apply this funny rule to all parts of the game as well. During an important diplomatic event, the players might say, "What should we tell this totally smokin' princess for the ideal outcome, preferably involving penetration omg lol" Should the DM assume that is said "in character in a language everyone understands"? That would probably make almost all the cool storytelling possibilities fall apart.

You could totally have a rule in a game that said all player talk about the stuff in the game is assumed to be in-character unless stated otherwise. It would probably make a really fucked up game in most cases.

Actually, the majority of groups I've been in have had the standing rule of "everything said at the table is considered IC, unless explicated otherwise"; where "explicated otherwise" is usually some sort of OOC hand signal.
I just thought that this was simply the way things were done.

[shadzar]

most people do do that. not with a hand single or bidding fan or such, sometimes simply saying "out of character...blahblahblah". this lets people think in game terms and talk to the NPCs, and the players are always talking to each other in character cause it only rarely makes a difference if they talk IC or OOC.

some things you can tell right away is when a DM asks a player something.

DM: What are you doing Bob?
Player Bob: I am going to talk to the merchant again.

DM: What is Jaxoph Jackson going to do?
Player Bob: Jax is going to go back and talk to the merchant.

DMis usually the one OOC most of the time because the DM duties and narrates his own actions and speech so the players know what is going on, who is there, who is talking, etc.

1st person ("I") is the character, 2nd person ("he/she/it") is the player... stuff like that.

maybe a guide could recognize these sorts of things or help a DM to recognize them

In my experience there's nothing actually unique, in total, about the position of MC compared to the players, so there's little point in creating a distinction. The voice of authority lies in consensus, and is neither the responsibility nor privilege of any individual at the table.

try this shit at any event and get consensus from the players that BBEG is just a kobold, and se if that does jack or shit.

i still think some people don't understand what the purpose of the DM is, or don't understand an RPG is different from a storytelling tool.

[Kuri Näkk]

I personally stepped up in june when my main group had a new guy join and say he was an awesome dm. in reality he was a jackass. He had a custom world and a custom plot. His god npc killed itself and we turned it into a fun game. I dmed 4 or so sessions and wound the plot down.

If a GM has a custom world and custom plot then it is very unlikely that you can replace the GM without significantly altering the gameworld and the plot. You can pretend that you continue the same game but effectively you have started a new one, which is somewhat similar to the earlier game (and hopefully much better). I suppose that the distinction is academic for some groups. However, the distinction in fundamental for most groups I have played with. In these games the story/campaign is very much about discovering the plot/motivations of NPCs step by step. In such games replacing the GM is not an option.

DMG should provide advice that is not specific for certain play style. I do not think that the advice "Replace the GM and continue with the game" is good universal advice.

[Kuri Näkk]

If there is anything particular to the position of MC that isn't applicable to everyone playing, it's that they are asked to respond to inputs more often than the others simply due to the dynamic established in most games where one person handles the character of "the world." That gives them more opportunity to steer the course of the game, but at no point does that make their inputs worth more than the players.

So, everybody plays a character and GM’s character is the world. Nothing really special about GMs “character”. It is not like PCs act in the world and are entirely dependent on their senses while inputs to the senses are determined by the GM. It is not like GM can effectively control the actions of PCs because of that power. Nothing truly unique about GMs position, not at all.

They [GMs] are as subject to contest or refutation as anything else said during the course of the game. The same holds true for rules disputes.

Everything said is subject to contest or refutation? So, when the GM says that "Sun is shining" you as a player can contest that? What about the actions of PCs? Can you refute them too?

[Kaelik]

Everything said is subject to contest or refutation? So, when the GM says that "Sun is shining" you as a player can contest that? What about the actions of PCs? Can you refute them too?

Yes, I'm a StormLord, I make it rain. Yes, I can say, no hang on guys, I don't want to fast forward through the night/I want to fastforward through the day.

[Artless]

In my experience there's nothing actually unique, in total, about the position of MC compared to the players, so there's little point in creating a distinction. The voice of authority lies in consensus, and is neither the responsibility nor privilege of any individual at the table.

try this shit at any event and get consensus from the players that BBEG is just a kobold, and se if that does jack or shit.

i still think some people don't understand what the purpose of the DM is, or don't understand an RPG is different from a storytelling tool.

I felt it would be pretty obvious that the avenues players, including the MC, use to interact with the game (such as characters, skills, abilities, what the fuck ever,) would be fairly immune to direct manipulations from someone else. However, that doesn't mean the table has to engage with content they don't find interesting to continue playing the game, even if they can't directly alter decisions made by another player or the MC. So no, the consensus can't up and change the BBEG to a shitty kobold with only one arm and no eyes. But the consensus can decide to simply ignore Bjornloxal the Cuckolded and go pick on No-Eyed Lefty instead. They can also say screw that altogether and do something else entirely.

Did you honestly assume I meant that a majority vote could mean that Jim's character Jim the Card Sharp is now Jim the limp-dicked Wendy's Employee, or are you just being thick for appearances' sake?

If there is anything particular to the position of MC that isn't applicable to everyone playing, it's that they are asked to respond to inputs more often than the others simply due to the dynamic established in most games where one person handles the character of "the world." That gives them more opportunity to steer the course of the game, but at no point does that make their inputs worth more than the players.

So, everybody plays a character and GM’s character is the world. Nothing really special about GMs “character”. It is not like PCs act in the world and are entirely dependent on their senses while inputs to the senses are determined by the GM. It is not like GM can effectively control the actions of PCs because of that power. Nothing truly unique about GMs position, not at all.

It's not like the content generated by the MC is entirely dependent on the actions of the players. It's not like the characters use the same rules as the MC to accomplish tasks. No, that would be silly.

And in any case, that shit isn't unique to the MC. You describe what you're doing, you take actions in the game, you respond to the other players, generate content, all the time. And that's altering what's happening in the game, altering how people envision it, altering the course of whatever narrative is there is. Don't act like it's suddenly more special because it comes from a particular side of the table.

[Desdan_Mervolam]

I'm curious Artless, who writes the adventure in your group? Who decides that the BBEG is a Mind Flayer as opposed to a Doppelganger as opposed to a Dragon as opposed to an Elf? Who decides what the BBEG and its minions do, both in combat and out of sight of the PCs? When there's deception and intrigue on the part of the BBEG and its minions, who decides what the party was informed of and what the reality of the situation is?

I'm honestly seriously curious. Does the group vote on that? If so, how does it usually play out? I have never been in a group where consensus actually, honestly is used to determine how the game plays out.

[Artless]

I'm curious Artless, who writes the adventure in your group? Who decides that the BBEG is a Mind Flayer as opposed to a Doppelganger as opposed to a Dragon as opposed to an Elf? Who decides what the BBEG and its minions do, both in combat and out of sight of the PCs? When there's deception and intrigue on the part of the BBEG and its minions, who decides what the party was informed of and what the reality of the situation is?

I'm honestly seriously curious. Does the group vote on that? If so, how does it usually play out? I have never been in a group where consensus actually, honestly is used to determine how the game plays out.

I can't give you an insight into a scenario where the results of actions are determined by committee because it's not what I'm talking about. As to your general questions, I... don't know if you're looking for a "gotcha," because there's nothing there I've particularly condemned. I'll just go point by point.

1. Whoever's the MC. Put simply, if it's of interest to the players, good job. Gold star and cake. But the players aren't required to interact with it because they aren't the MC's characters and can make their own decisions.
2. Ditto.
3. The MC. How is this different from the experience of the players? They make decisions in combat, and they form plans and find goals in downtime. What makes the end results any different? That they generally have to say this stuff out loud? If so that's a fairly weak distinction. Both the players' and MC's characters are not privy to information they are not present to gather, and they have to use abilities to acquire that information according to the rules of whatever game they're playing.
4. The rolls. This we shouldn't even need to address because most games use an objective referee: the ruleset. If the BBEG wants to hide something from other characters they've got to establish that by rolling the dice or using their abilities. If what you're asking is "how do the players know the motivations of the character they just met or how do they listen to a conversation that doesn't happen in front of them and have no way of knowing about," I don't know how to answer you. None of that is relevant. The "intrigue" you're positing could all be arbitrary nonsense in the MC's head as far as the players are concerned. What matters is: does it surface in the game? If not, I don't care because it's not part of the game. If yes, I can choose to engage with it or ignore it.

For expediency's sake I said the MC plays the world as their character. Instead, to be pedantic, I should say the MC plays the characters and parts of the world the players interact with. If stuff happens off screen I literally don't give a shit because I'm not a part of it's generation in any way so I might as well not even be at the table for it.

[Desdan_Mervolam]

I'm not looking for a "Gotcha" because, even though I don't push the "GM is God" bullshit, I don't see at all how a GM's role is so little different than the player's that it may as well not be a separate role. There's some pretty important things that have to be done.

For example, characters don't fade out of existance when they're out of line-of-sight of the party. They make decisions, and these decisions can have effects on the party. Like, how do you decide if the BBEG sends someone out to follow the party? Like, I don't mean 'what do you make the party roll to notice they're being followed', I mean, who decides that the follower got dispatched at all?

So, let's try it like this. I'm going to throw a plot hook out. We'll make the assumption that the party is willing to follow this plot hook, because while I'm aware PCs have an infinite ability to pass plot hooks either intentionally or not, this conversation won't go anywhere without a basic level of agreement from the party.

So here's a basic plot hook: The local ruler's child has been kidnapped by an evil wizard who is demanding the throne in return for that child's life. We'll assume that all threats are level appropriate to the party, so that party level is more-or-less irrelevant to the equation.

1)First off, who decided the plot hook? Does the MC decide it, or does the party throw out ideas until everyone agrees "That sounds like fun"? Remember this is pre-supposing that the party follows the plot hook, so none of that "The party decided because they can cross their arms, turn up their nose and walk away" business.

2) Who decides what evidence is left to the party to determine where the wizard went? Does he have one base of operations? Does he have several he rotates through? What is the terrain between here and the final destination, and is there a way to skip over a big chunk of it other than fast-time?

3) Who decides what his personal offenses and defenses are? Hell, who decided his stats? Because personal strengths and weaknesses are important to know, and it wouldn't be hard for a party to decide by consensus "Yeah, he's an evil wizard, but he's not necessarily good at being a wizard" to make things easier on themselves.

4) Who decides what kind of forces he has marshaled in support of his coup? Does he have a mundane army in place to enforce his rule? Does he employ a smaller number of more experienced minions arranged into squads instead? Does he have moles, assassins, spies and saboteurs in the King's forces to skew things in his favor? What precautions are in place to keep the secret forces from being automatically detected, because they shouldn't be?

All these are very important things for this plot. All these things are traditionally determined by the GM. All these things need to be established ahead of time by someone, and not all of this can be stuff immediately obvious or even known at all by the party at large.

I don't see how it's possible to actually run a game like this, that is not boring and by-the-numbers with the party knowing how to respond to everything, with the only X-factor being dice results if the GM may as well just be another player.

[RobbyPants]

TheFlatline's "if you talk during combat at all, your characters literally say what you say unless you state otherwise!" is one of the funniest house rules I've ever heard. I've never heard anyone be such a nazi about it.

You'd like to think that, but I played with a lot of DMs that would assume that. The "lenient" ones would at least ask "Is your character really saying that?" or some such, and allow you to redact or reword it.

Of course, this was 15 year ago, back when I was still playing 2E. There was an entire culture centered around DMs being complete assholes back then, and on how this was a good thing for the game. It mostly centered on some misguided notion about this being the DM's game and a passive-aggressive attempt from the DM to cut down on chatter during the game (How dare you have fun OOC?! Get out of my basement!).

[Kuri Näkk]

Everything said is subject to contest or refutation? So, when the GM says that "Sun is shining" you as a player can contest that? What about the actions of PCs? Can you refute them too?

Yes, I'm a StormLord, I make it rain. Yes, I can say, no hang on guys, I don't want to fast forward through the night/I want to fastforward through the day.

I assume that you are referring to some specific power of Stormlords (that is described in the rules.) If so, you are not contesting or refuting the GM's statement. The GM determined that the sun is shining and you, acting on the information, change the weather.

In the second example you are also not refuting or contesting the statement that “the sun is shining”. You are proposing to focus on another period of the gametime. Even if the group agrees then the sun keeps shining in the gameworld, the group just skips the day.