Let me preface this post with the following: there have been a lot of ideas percolating (if not particularly "gelling") of late in my brain, and they are derived from a number of internet babblers. Here's the list (for interested folks):
I
think this is posted in the order in which I read them, but I'm not actually going to go back and check the dates. My time is fairly limited today.
As said, all these have been percolating in my head, making me examine...and re-examine...and re-define, my personal concept of
myself as a
Dungeon Master. How I do it, why I do it...hell, even
should I do it. And
if I should, then
how should I and
why should I...
This Spring, I had the opportunity to closely observe my son's Little League coach successfully wrangle (and encourage and teach) a squad of mostly unruly and often disinterested six year olds through a season of "America's pastime" (tee-ball version). The man had
the fucking patience of Job, and I felt myself thinking (and often commenting to others) that I couldn't even begin to see myself in such a role...that it would drive me crazy with frustration, or that I would be too competitive and too hard on the kids. And, yet, I was recently petitioned to take the head coach position for next year's (first grade) soccer team...and I accepted. Despite my misgivings and worries that I'll morph into some sort of
petty tyrant of the pitch.
[
*sigh* we've got to grow, right?]
The role of Dungeon Master is one that is custom-made for the would-be petty tyrant. And while most folks who play D&D could hardly be blamed for hoping for some sort of "benevolent dictatorship," my base feeling is that autocratic, authoritarian rule is
imperative to running a solid (i.e. effective) game of
Dungeons & Dragons. Yes, the same thing I fear in myself as a teacher and coach for children, is something I find necessary for this Great Game of ours.
"Autocratic?" Yes. And please note I'm speaking specifically of
Dungeons & Dragons, not all RPGs in general. The vehicle for gaming that is D&D requires an
absolute authority to act as referee and rules arbiter. It is a requirement if one wishes to experience the entertainment of the
game as designed.
Let me clarify, though, lest folks misconstrue...this isn't about some Machiavelli "better-to-be-feared-than-loved" power trip. This is about being an umpire. This isn't about "social contract," a phrase many of us (including myself) have carelessly thrown around with regard to what should happen at the game table. Again, let me be clear:
social contract is the reason I don't simply piss on your couch, should I find myself needing to urinate while visiting your home. Nothing else (short of physical restraint) prevents me from doing so...the accepted proprieties and shared cultural assumptions of our (supposedly) polite society.
When we sit down at a table to play a GAME, we are agreeing to abide by
a set of rules that govern play. And in the case of D&D, the Dungeon Master is the one responsible for presenting the players with the world in which they find themselves. Game exists
within social contract...as does all human interaction...but it does
not govern the rules by which we play. Rules are not,
must not, be subject to negotiation. Interpretation, perhaps, but not negotiation.
Not at the table, anyway. Away from the table...before a game, after a game...
that is the time to have a discussion (if required) regarding the way the game will be played, the way the rules will be interpreted. Many DMs feel the need (for whatever reason) to alter or tweak D&D's designed systems in ways that differ from the
Rules As Written...and so long as these are presented formally, prior to play, the existence of such changes to the RAW game, good or bad, become a non-issue. Players of American football may bitch (or cheer) rule changes made during the off-season (such as the addition of a two-point conversion, or a new penalty for excessive on-field celebration), but once the season begins, once the
games begin, the players (and coaches and fans) are expected to shut the F up and play the game by the new rules.
When I sit down to play Chess, I don't get to fuck around with the rules. When I sit down to play D&D I should be giving the same respect to its rules. If the rules state "a player's character should not act on knowledge the character doesn't possess," dammit, that's a rule! If the rules say dwarves can't play thieves or clerics don't get spells till 2nd level, it doesn't matter whether or not I think the rule is nonsensical or "un-fun." Likewise if I say we have a house rule
preventing player versus player combat. Them's the rules, and bugger off if you don't like it.
A dungeon master needs to embody this, needs to run the game table with an iron fist, for good reason: it is only by being an absolute stickler and hard-ass can the players be assured that the game being played is
fair and balanced (yeah, I realize this statement might prompt a WTF moment).
Here's the skinny: the role of the Dungeon Master is,
by design, an
adversarial one. The players are not playing against another each other (as in
Monopoly), nor against another team (as in football), nor against the game itself (as in a video game or certain board games like
DungeonQuest). The players are pitted against the challenges presented to their characters...that's what the game is about, in
every edition...and those challenges are crafted and run by the dungeon master.
That's the DM's job. If the DM is shitty about it, then the game will be a shitty one.
And in this case, being shitty means being
arbitrary, being "flexible," bending rules and fudging dice rolls, and forgetting various rules and minutia they're too lazy to remember or implement, even in the aid of "pacing" or "storytelling." I'm going to come down hard on the side of Ozymandius here: D&D is
not about creating a story. It is not collaborative storytelling. There are other RPGs that do that; some that do it well and make storytelling and "addressing premise" a priority of design. D&D is not one of those; D&D is about challenging players. A story of "what happened to us and what we did (or did not) accomplish" may come out of game play...something
resembling fiction...but D&D is, in the end,
not about creating fiction. It is a game that challenges players, and challenges them in pretty specific ways.
The DM provides that challenge. The rules (which the DM must enforce with absolute authority) are there to govern play, including both inspiring and constraining the DM: the DM must follow her own rules as well. I acknowledge there is difficulty in being fair and impartial at all times, especially when tension runs high and tempers flare during an especially spirited session, and that is why it is so important that the DM have iron resolve regarding the game, its rules, and the authority and responsibility invested in the position.
So long as the DM embodies her own authority consistently, players can play from an informed perspective...they can explore the boundaries of what's possible within the system, they can face challenges (and then
greater challenges, and then
even greater challenges). They can master the rules themselves, they can judge risk and reward, they can hedge, they can find ways to cooperate and grow together as an effective team while building camaraderie. And they can do it while losing themselves in escapist fantasy, trusting the DM will not be
arbitrary, but both firm and fair...even if it is (at times) dingy, dangerous, and unforgiving.
Kind of like the real world.
I find myself wanting to write some sort of treatise on dungeon mastering, outlining an ordered system as an aid to would-be petty tyrants (i.e. DMs), like myself. I might do so (though probably nothing in the near future, mind you), if only to codify my own thoughts on the matter. Some sort of manual to help me remember my values and ideals when I'm sitting at the table, both alone (writing worlds and scenarios) and with others (running the game).
Some sort of DM's guidebook, I suppose.
; )
