The Tight Play

I recall that when I played D&D, rather than run it, my favourite tactic was to "play my cards close to my chest" ... that is, say nothing of what I intended to do, before doing it.

I didn't, as my own players do, and virtually every player I've ever run, spend a long amount of time discussing first what they think they might do, then a little longer discussing when to do it, and some more time discussing if they should do it, before tentatively doing it while continuing to speak in the future tense.  That is, "We're going to go to the town," or, "I'm going to hit it with my sword."  Getting players to speak in the present tense about what their characters "do," as opposed to what they're "going to do," can be like pulling teeth.  In fact, I've had players argue steadfastly that it's proper to give actions in the future tense, in case the DM wants to disallow the action.

As if I couldn't disallow an action stated in the present tense.

The ongoing confab is understandable.  All too often a loose cannon — someone who goes ahead and does something without discussion — decides that the thing that needs to be done is something enormously stupid, like killing the old man explaining what's going on or setting the bar on fire.  Acts like this increase the general party's need to control the actions of other players, particularly the very dumb ones, and the confab is a rational, reasonable approach to that problem.

Unfortunately — and rarely does a party understand this — it gives tremendous opportunity for the DM to prepare for anything and everything that party does next.  For example, as the party chats among themselves, asking things like: "What if there's a guard waiting behind the door?" ... the DM can think, "Mm, that's a good idea."

Oh yes, of course the DM's not supposed to do that, it would be ethically wrong ... but if we had put a guard behind the door, there's plenty of time to replay, in our head, all the ways the guard might react once the players go ahead with their plan, eventually.

This makes much of dungeon mastering an effort to avoid knowing something that we already know, that we do know, and that our thoughts are going to be affected by, even if we don't want that.  Because we're human, and we're as libel to being primed as anyone.

The matter is particularly relevant when the players tells the other players (and me too) what's going to said to me when the time come to say it to me.  Of course, the player means when it's said to the guard, but I'm also the guard, so I have to tell myself, "Right, the guard doesn't know this," even though I do.

And it is, in fact, more advanced warning than I necessarily want.

Let's think about this cinematically for a moment.  Our lead character says, "We've got to get into that building," and the plucky supporting player says, "Leave it to me."  The supporting player heads off left and we see the lead turn to the scared supporting player and says, "Make sure your safety is off," or something to that effect.

It that situation, playing as the plucky supporting character, I tell the DM I'm getting such-and-such out, but I don't say why or what I'm going to do with it.  In fact, to make this better, I don't get out my flask of oil (effect predictable) or a whistle (effect predictable).  No, instead, I get out some obscure object, say a ripe beet.  Then, hiding behind the corner, I drop my weapons, squeeze the juice of the beet all over my hands, smear it on my face and stagger out, screaming as though I'm pain, crying out, "They've killed me, they've killed me!"

It's odd, the DM isn't ready for it, and for as long as I can keep the DM's attention on me, I can argue that's how long the guards watch me before they take action.  I just need 30 seconds or so.  No problem.

This kind of thing really fucks up a DM.  They're so used to everything being predictable and normal, if something really flakey turns up, they usually stumble all over themselves trying to figure out how they "ought" to respond to it.  This makes a "tight play" really effective, especially if it's lame or nonsensical.  Because something that's nonsense is much harder to react upon than something rational.

If we play the same scene out as most D&D players would, however, one player says, "We've got to get into that building," which is followed by someone saying, "Well, we could do this," and another asking, "How about this?" ... and this goes on for five or ten minutes, unless the DM attacks the party because they think they've got all day to sit behind this wall thinking up something to do without anyone being able to agree.  And in the meantime, the DM knows exactly how to act, because enough time is being given by the players to work that out.

The disappearance of tight play is a great loss for D&D.  It might, in fact, be appropriate to tell the DM, "We want to talk in private."  After all, why should it be the DM's right, all the time, to know what the players are going to do next?  Why isn't it fair to send the DM out for five, ten or twenty minutes, to let the players work out something that their characters have the time to talk about.  I don't think that's reasonable during a battle, or where the time constraint is all too short, but if the players are sitting at a tavern, discussing their next move against the cabal that's threatening their lives, does the DM have to be there?  Is "gawd" always listening?

Since I run a combat system where a player can do a lot more than just swing again (it's inherent in all the equipment, the movement system and other opportunities that arise, and not just for spellcasters), I'm never exactly sure what a given player will do when it's their turn.  I have run players that kept their own counsel, right up to the last moment.  It's fun.  It takes wit, readiness, and the ability to "give it to the player" for coming up with something that's honestly great.

I don't play any more, in part because I often didn't get a good response to my style of play.  It felt, to those DMs I played with, as "manipulative."  I can see their point of view.  Yes.  Exactly.  It's a thinking game.  Being a step ahead of the DM, in a way the game allows, is a way to succeed.  And when I hold back the cards in my hand, it's harder to control me with all the power of the universe at the DM's back and call.

It always seemed that what DMs wanted to do was control me.

So I stopped playing with them.  I do try not to control the players in my own campaign.  Which is very hard when the tell me everything they're about to do.