Must the DM welcome/reject players input at the game table

[Benoist]

Is there something, anything in AD&D, by the book, that states the DM must shut down each and every attempt on the players' part to have any input on the campaign whatsoever?

Must the DM, by the book, welcome or reject players' input?

I'm searching for by-the-book (with actual quotes) evidence of either side of this debate.

[Tholianweb]

Is there something, anything in AD&D, by the book, that states the DM must shut down each and every attempt on the players' part to have any input on the campaign whatsoever?

Must the DM, by the book, welcome or reject players' input?

I'm searching for by-the-book (with actual quotes) evidence of either side of this debate.

This is laughable and I am not talking about the OP. If I ever got wind of a game that stated such comments, it would be a game that I would totally avoid. I will also add that any player who plays a game officiated by one person designated as the DM, GM, CM, or whatever, they know that he is the one that makes the ultimate decision as far as what input is allowed in that one person's campaign.

If you do not like the DM, do not play. If the DM is open to change, then kudos to that person BUT for a game to state what the OP was stating, is ludicrous and outright laughable.

[Benoist]

I am discussing about AD&D on another forum (The RPG Site). One of the users is telling me that the AD&D books spell out that there is nothing beyond a strict separation between the role of DM and player, which means the DM should not allow the players to have any input on the campaign whatsoever.

This is something said user has kept saying or alluding to for YEARS now, and I really would like to get to the bottom of that idea, by-the-freaking-book, as moronic as it might sound to you and I. This is one of those myths about AD&D that really start to piss me off.

[Matthew]

Nope. Not that I know of. In fact, the section on strongholds says:

Fighters and clerics will be the principal territorial developers. Magic-users will typically become involved to a lesser extent, for they have many more demands upon their time. The real benefit of having player characters develop territory is the addition to your milieu. These areas become focal points for action in the campaign if properly encouraged and handled, and if things grow a bit slow, a DM-invented threat to some territory is bound to get things moving with elan.

But I seriously doubt you will get someone entrenched in his position to back down over this by quoting the book at him.

[Flambeaux]

Nope. Nothing. Nada. Zip. Zilch. Non. Nyet.

Dude's full of...

Nothing in the Scripture nor in the Tradition (rightly interpreted).

[Benoist]

Quoting the guy: "Where does it say the DM should use the players' advice, input, etc., in the creation of the campaign, adventures, etc.?"

To which I answered: "Where does it say the DM SHOULD NOT do that at all?"

To give you an idea of the debate.

[Benoist]

Actual quote from the guy:

DMG page 7: "Participants will always be pushing for a game which allows them to become strong and powerful far too quickly. Each will attempt to take the game out of your hands and mold it to his or her own ends. To satisfy this natural desire is a to issue a death warrant to a campaign..."

[T. Foster]

I knew there was a reason I don't visit theRPGSite much anymore

[Benoist]

Well yeah I know. Some more quotes of the guy. Quoting his post:

DMG page 7: "As the creator and ultimate authority in your respective game, this work is written as one Dungeon Master equal to another."

DMG page 7: "Advanced D&D is more than a framework around which individual DMs construct their respective milieux..."

DMG page 7: "When you build your campaign you will tailor it to suit your personal tastes."

DMG page 7: "To obtain real satisfaction from such effort [building the campaign], you must have participants who will make use of your creations: players to learn the wonders and face the perils you have devised for them."

DMG page 7: "Participants will always be pushing for a game which allows them to become strong and powerful far too quickly. Each will attempt to take the game out of your hands and mold it to his or her own ends. To satisfy this nature desire is a to issue a death warrant to a campaign..."

I haven't even gotten out of the Preface yet - do I really need to continue?

[Falconer]

Odhanan: he’s obviously cropping the text to support his hypothesis. Don’t you have a DMG? Well, go read the same section and see what you can come up with!

[jallison86]

Well the point of the game is to have fun. I think most players want to have some effect on the campaign world in which they play, even if it's something as simple as "it'd sure be fun to have an underwater adventure." The DM can ignore that sort of input, but it's entirely possible that this will alienate the players to the point that they just up and leave. Gary's comments in the DMG about players being power-hungry are correct, of course, and good DM's are the ones whose players are always left wanting a bit more. But he's not saying ignore your players, he's simply saying that you can't be a wimp as a DM.

If players are becoming frustrated by their lack of impact on the campaign world the obvious solution is to let them DM. Either with their own campaign or as a "guest DM" in the main campaign. In my group we have several campaigns going at the same time. One is consistently run by the same DM, but in the others the DM duties rotate. While you're DM'ing your player becomes an NPC. Works well to keep everyone involved and we've had minimal problems with consistency. Such problems are pretty easily explained away in a fantasy setting, and at the end of the day we're playing to have fun and tend to not get too hung up on these things (at most they're fodder for long email threads).

- Jeff

[Benoist]

Yes. I do have a DMG. Here's where I start answering his quotes.

[AxeMental]

Is there something, anything in AD&D, by the book, that states the DM must shut down each and every attempt on the players' part to have any input on the campaign whatsoever?

Must the DM, by the book, welcome or reject players' input?

I'm searching for by-the-book (with actual quotes) evidence of either side of this debate.

The way you worded this sentence...its difficult to understand. I think the answer is no, the DMG does not address players involvement in creating the setting they will be adventuring in (is that the thing your driving at?)

The DM creates a world (some may call this a campaign world) and the players move threw it as they wish. The players shouldn't create anything in that world as they will be controlling PCs out discover its aspects. If they did have input it would ruin the surprise (lessen the sense of adventure) so what would be the point. The only instances I can think of would be a DM also playing an PC, a Co-DM playing a PC or a DM running a players dungeon/adventure he wrote. I could see a DM asking his players what they might think of a x setting to see if it will bomb. No point in presenting some oddball idea if its a guaranteed snoozer. So, yeah, I wouldn't think a player would give specifics, but I can see the DM using some of them as advisers to see if they are on the right track before he sinks 20 hours into designing The World of Gyneash.

[rogatny]

PH, pg. 107

"Now assume that a game is scheduled tomorrow, and you are going to get ready for it well in advance so as to have as much actual playing time as possible - no sense in spending precious adventuring minutes with the mundane
preparations common to the game.

First get in touch with all those who will be included in the adventure, or if all are not available, at least talk to the better players so that you will be able to set an objective for the adventure. Whether the purpose is so simple as to discover a flight of stairs to the next lowest unexplored level or so difficult as to find and destroy on altar to an alien god, some firm objective should be established and then adhered to as strongly as possible."

This is advice to the players, which seems to me states that the goal for an individual session should be set by the players rather than the Dungeon Master.

PH, pg. 107

"Once the objective has been established, consider how well the party playing will suit the needs which it has engendered. Will the characters have the means of accomplishing the goal? Is it well-balanced, so that it can cope with typical problems expected in the fulfillment of the objective? Will it be necessary to find mercenary non-player characters ormhire men-at-arms in order to give the party the necessary muscle? Is any special equipment needed? When agreement regarding these and any similar questions has been reached, each participant must ready his or her character, but preparations must be made with the welfare of the whole group in mind."

Thus, the party composition, including whether npcs should be included should be up to the players, as well.

PH, pg. 107-109

"At the same time preparations for the upcoming expedition are under way, each player should see that his or her character has made proper preparations as well. These preparations include the safety of henchmen and/or goods which are to remain behind, wealth safely hidden or placed, instructions as to what to do if the character fails to return left with a trusted person, and a "will" of some sort written out so that the DM will not balk at the arrangements made to assure the smooth transition of goods to the devoted "relative" of the defunct character if those sore straits should ever come to pass."

This seems to assume the player has input, if not complete control, over cronies/servants/henchmen and relatives and some sort of home or base, or at minimum, to quote Carlin, "A place to keep his stuff."

Also, I'd point to things like Wish and similar spells, magic item creation, spell research, and establishing dominions as clear indications that a certain amount of player input on the reality of the campaign world was to be expected, especially at the higher levels.

With regard to dominions...

DMG, pg 93

"Both you and the player concerned will be making maps of the territory..."

DMG, pg. 94

"...[W]hen the player elects to build he or she must be required to furnish you with a duplicate set of plans of the castle grounds, its dungeons, and interiors as well. At the same time you can give the player a free hand in drawing a small scale map of the area immediately around his ar her stronghold - say, on a 1 hex to 30 yards basis, so about a one-half mile area hex can be depicted on a normal sheet of small hex paper, and a bit beyond shown as needed...

***
...[D]evelopment of territory by player characters is a highly desirable aspect of the campaign. It gives added purpose to play, and provides long periods where the player can be actively involved in the actual direction of the campaign milieu..."

So, in that regard, there are a number of areas where the DM is explicitly instructed to do the exact opposite of "shut[ting] down each and every attempt on the players' part to have any input on the campaign whatsoever."

[Benoist]

Thank you rogatny. This is incredibly useful.