Come, Herpminadelphius!

Following yesterday's discussion:

Making the Character

Most D&D versions provide a step-by-step method for generating player characters from scratch, which is helpful for the new DM. It helps enormously when we become exceedingly familiar with the routine of making characters, so we can be a helpmeet to players – especially new players – we introduce to the game. I recommend that you puzzle out as many nuances of your particular rule book by actually making two or three dozen characters, from start to finish. Try to view each part as the player would.

For some, making character after character is an exciting prospect; for others, it might become a bit tedious. Remember that you’re doing it to acquaint yourself with the character making process – tough it out as best you can, but get at least two dozen characters made. Three dozen is better.

When the time comes to direct the characters through the method, we can encourage them not to spend very much time providing incidental details regarding their character’s likes or dislikes – or even the character’s origins. These things can be left for later, if we need to include them at all. Primarily, we need to concentrate on getting the character’s structure ready for game play ... and for that reason we can concentrate on the bare bones of detail we need.

We may loosely divide the character’s construction into four categories: the character’s physical and mental qualities; what the character knows how to do; the character’s resilience against enemies; and what the character possesses.

Lot of thought to possess 251 words ... and now we come to a crossroads.  How deep into the game do we wish to go, given that we're talking multiple versions being addressed at once?

I think that depends on whether we intend to produce a pamphlet or a book that stands up to being read multiple times.  Because I write long posts, I'm sometimes accused of going on too long about a subject.  Surely that's not what we want here.  At the same time, I'm trying to show through these posts how much deliberation goes into writing a tiny amount of words — even a single sentence.  Writing a lot isn't always a question of waffling on ... sometimes, we write a lot because there's a lot to say.

So, what is here to say?  Well, we can address the age old question of what the ability stats are, what they stand for, the difference between wisdom and intelligence and so on; we can write on whether we need a distinction between charisma and comeliness; we can talk about alignment; and how much coin to give a character to start the game; and we can talk about restricting character names.  I played in a game my first year with a fellow who's two characters were named "Exlax" and "Fruit-of-the-Tomb."  Are these names acceptable?  Are they real names, or monikers?  Should the character be forced to admit to a real name, whatever they call themselves in-game?  These are questions a DM will have to answer for his or her self, and for the players.

One comment I made yesterday to Sterling is relevant.  Players will ask the DM questions, which the DM will have to answer.  These are questions that have been around since the beginning, which I and my mates had to puzzle out for ourselves — through more than a few violent shouting matches.  Some, I know, will argue this was good for us; that every group of players needs this trial by fire to sort themselves out as DMs and players.  That if they're committed to the game, they'll be fine.  I can't agree with this approach.  Ultimately, it led to the company interposing itself to offer defacto statements for DMs, to the point where young, foolish DMs write directly to the company to have the company make decisions the DM ought to make.

But "Aha!" says the Gentle Reader.  "That proves DMs have to work these problems out for themselves!"  Does it?  Or does it prove that one voice, whether it's that of the DM, the company or me, is not a reliable source.  There's an argument to be made that the company should have taught how to resolve these matters rather than shooting straight in and assuming the Voice On High approach.

Consider:

As DM, you will face arguments.  Players will seek alternate interpretations of a rule's language, one that better favours their position, and will concoct all sorts of arguments for why a change needs to be made to maintain the "integrity" of the rules.  This behaviour can be witnessed in all human interactions, from personal agreements between employees and bosses to deliberations between states.  Most players will, at one time or another, however much they have, attempt some argument in the hopes of getting a little more.

Our position is strengthened by our expecting this.  We need to ready ourselves for pitches the players make, preparing arguments of our own that we can implement if need be.  That requires more than knowing the rules.  We must know how to defend them, and why.  Otherwise, the players will run roughshod over our campaign, claiming duress that we've caused them by failing to give into their demands.

Believe it or not, the solution is to demonstrate greater strength as a DM than the other can as a player.  This doesn't mean to be deaf, dumb and blind to the player's suggestions or questions — and if the player does invent some interpretation that we can't legitimately produce an argument against, we should let the player have his or her way.  But we mustn't let ourselves be bullied.  If the player raises his or her voice, stand up from your chair and repeat your position.  If the player stands as well, hold your ground.  And if the player gets out of control, ask the player to leave.  Should it come to that, give every opportunity for the player to return and apologise — but make it clear that the matter is settled, and that as a DM standing in defense of your game, you have nothing to apologise for.

Unless, of course, you lose control yourself.  Apologise for that.

This is merely a first attempt, of course.  But it gets across the point I'm making.  Note that I won't use the term, "rules lawyer."  Don't ever use this term!  It was created by presumptive DMs to disparage any player voice that might disagree with the Holy DM and it's worked well as a label to shout down players.  Part of the problem with the above text is that it fails to make it CLEAR ENOUGH that as a DM, you're often wrong — often very, very wrong — and that needs addressing also.

The whole matter of DM-decision-making is a quagmire, but it can't be ignored.  It's something we'll have to come back to again and again.  My chief point at present is that the phase above about readying counter-arguments to what the players say.  A DM cannot just decide, "I'm using training rules in my game."  That's a recipe for 101 arguments from players; myself, I'd leave a game on that fundamental point by itself.  A DM's got to justify that rule ... and that justification has to be very damn good, because the rule is a flagrant cash-grab and abuse of the player.

Look:  in game, I've earned my experience.  I've made decisions that let me survive from 4th to 5th level and I've acquired every point by standing up to monsters and what the hell else.  And now you, as DM, are going to impose a completely unreasonable TAX on my actions?  What the fuck?  Now I pay real taxes because they make roads and schools and stop bad things from happening through fire and criminal behaviour ... among thousands of other good things.  But this is a totally arbitrary tax that awards the DM nothing.  Nothing of value to me is purchased with these ridiculous piles of money I'm handing over, while all I'm getting is the DM's say-so that "Yes, okay, you're 5th level now."

The fact that it's a cash grab is written straight into the rules of a book that tells the DM, "Don't let the players read this book" (or words to that effect, I can't be bothered to find the exact quote).  Guess why.  Because any player reading about the tax imposed by the training rule sees clearly how the DM is bending them over the gaming table.  In 40 years I've never heard an argument proposed that reasonably justifies this rule.

But do I want to go through every rule in the book, point-by-point and create a counter argument for the new DM?  Gawd no.  Thus the crossroads.  Clearly, some tools need to be provided.  Some structure of how to build a counter-player argument must be included, and how to cheerfully accept good arguments from players when they're provided.  The best strategy I have is to address a fair collection of rules throughout the book — two or three hundred, say — and try to explain the motivation behind circumventing them, as well as reasons to let them be.  Then, let the DM, thus armed, make his or her own decisions on what's the best approach.

We cannot let this thing be the Wild West.  We've tried that approach and all that's happened is present-day you-tube videos 43 years after the fact arguing that yes, we should definitely make players pay for training.  This is ridiculous.  At some point a general consensus must be built that will let these many BAD IDEAS of Gygax and Arneson DIE.

I appreciate that the reader may not be overly credulous that this is possible.  Perhaps this is not a tide against which we can swim.  But the alternative to addressing this ongoing idiocy is to let it go on.

I can't see that as a rational approach.

The right answer is to thread the needle on the subject better and with greater aplomb than has ever been done before ... which might be a truly difficult argument to make if I were discussing Hobbesian politics or Kantian philosophy.  Thankfully, I'm not.  I'm addressing thinkers on the scale of Gygax, Arneson, Mentzer, Mearls and Perkins.  "Titans" in this industry, but ... well, to borrow a scene from the ancient Heavy Metal comic, Tex Arcana ...

... it's a small pentagram.

P.S.,

Lastly, here's a quote from a renovator I regularly watch, discussing the philosophy of self-motivation towards renovation that applies equally well to DMing.  I include it here specifically because many parts are not my approach, but would obviously be very useful to a person not possessing my personality.  Yes, I'm able to conceive of that.

"How to be the person that's going to want to do it, and follow through with doing it ... that's the tricky part.

"I feel like you have to blend in when dealing with other, but be quietly aggressive.  Many people act in a way that makes you overestimate them, but in many cases they are not very competent.  I feel being underestimated, or someone others are not even thinking about is best.  Think long term and don't get distracted by temporary delights that are not important to you — that being the important part.  Don't be selfish and think only of yourself; it's not very motivating long-term, and it's easy to let yourself down — versus your children, for example.  I personally believe following the straight and narrow path is best.  When you deviate, you experience resistance.  All actions have consequences, so be slow to act and consider if the results are worth it.  It's okay to not always get what you want.  If I did everything I wanted, I would not have the things that I love the most."