It’s not really about combat, but rather about the GM’s narrative. In any game, the GM usually has some story designed, with pre-determined events, locations, characters, etc. When the players deviate too far from the plot, the GM is in trouble, because he’s got nothing prepared. He can improvise up to a point, but the overall gaming experience will suffer.
A good GM will gracefully handle whatever crazy thing the players want to do, and channel them back toward the prepared plot tree in a way that feels seamless. A bad GM (such as, sadly, myself) will flail around for a while, employing increasingly desperate measures to get the players back on track. A truly terrible GM will flat out tell his players, “no, you can’t do this, for no better reason other than that I told you so”.
Sometimes players like to feel they’ve stymied the DM, for instance by using a loophole to bypass a whole series of obstacles and jump straight to the win. As DM I would sometimes set up situations like that, hoping that they would think of the loophole, and then acting all chagrined when they did. :) But of course the win came with complications of its own, which led to the main plot I was actually trying to get to. (Or if they don’t win, I’d have another way to get them there.) Anyway, the point is that it can be fun for the players to feel like they have a big impact on the plot. And hey, sometimes they actually do—players going off on tangents has led to some really cool plots that I had not planned for. Like when my plan was for them to defeat some druglords, but the swordmage decided to get addicted to the drug instead.
When the players deviate too far from the plot, the GM is in trouble, because he’s got nothing prepared. He can improvise up to a point, but the overall gaming experience will suffer.
There’s a delicate tradeoff on the effect on the experience—on the one hand, the players will feel more involved in a story that goes the direction they want it to go, but on the other hand there will have been less preparation for the content they encounter—so the result can be an improvement in the gaming experience.
Which effect is stronger can depend of whether the rules covert he desired action with an interesting mechanic, whether the DM planned for diversions (through world building, lists of things that can be injected in to get things back on a track), and how good at improvisation the DM is.
I played an excellent game that was all about improvisation and going off tangents, but it was with a pretty good DM who could handle whatever we sent his way. I’m much worse at that (I’m a bad DM and haven’t DMed for a few years now).
Which effect is stronger can depend of whether the rules cover the desired action with an interesting mechanic, whether the DM planned for diversions (through world building, lists of things that can be injected in to get things back on a track), and how good at improvisation the DM is.
Agreed, though again, the rules are a secondary problem at best. Almost every game has catch-all rules that can be applied to any situation, even D&D. For example, if my players wanted to plow the field successfully, I’d have them roll “Knowledge: Nature” or, if they don’t have it, “Knowledge: Local”. If they just want to fix the plow, it’d be a “Craft” check… etc. The problem is not with the rules, but with the plot and the setting. As the GM, I probably have a detailed map of the Drow caves and an org chart of their social structure; but I know squat about growing wheat. I could find out on Wikipedia, of course, but taking the time to do so would break the flow of the game.
It’s not really about combat, but rather about the GM’s narrative. In any game, the GM usually has some story designed, with pre-determined events, locations, characters, etc. When the players deviate too far from the plot, the GM is in trouble, because he’s got nothing prepared. He can improvise up to a point, but the overall gaming experience will suffer.
A good GM will gracefully handle whatever crazy thing the players want to do, and channel them back toward the prepared plot tree in a way that feels seamless. A bad GM (such as, sadly, myself) will flail around for a while, employing increasingly desperate measures to get the players back on track. A truly terrible GM will flat out tell his players, “no, you can’t do this, for no better reason other than that I told you so”.
Sometimes players like to feel they’ve stymied the DM, for instance by using a loophole to bypass a whole series of obstacles and jump straight to the win. As DM I would sometimes set up situations like that, hoping that they would think of the loophole, and then acting all chagrined when they did. :) But of course the win came with complications of its own, which led to the main plot I was actually trying to get to. (Or if they don’t win, I’d have another way to get them there.) Anyway, the point is that it can be fun for the players to feel like they have a big impact on the plot. And hey, sometimes they actually do—players going off on tangents has led to some really cool plots that I had not planned for. Like when my plan was for them to defeat some druglords, but the swordmage decided to get addicted to the drug instead.
There’s a delicate tradeoff on the effect on the experience—on the one hand, the players will feel more involved in a story that goes the direction they want it to go, but on the other hand there will have been less preparation for the content they encounter—so the result can be an improvement in the gaming experience.
Which effect is stronger can depend of whether the rules covert he desired action with an interesting mechanic, whether the DM planned for diversions (through world building, lists of things that can be injected in to get things back on a track), and how good at improvisation the DM is.
I played an excellent game that was all about improvisation and going off tangents, but it was with a pretty good DM who could handle whatever we sent his way. I’m much worse at that (I’m a bad DM and haven’t DMed for a few years now).
Agreed, though again, the rules are a secondary problem at best. Almost every game has catch-all rules that can be applied to any situation, even D&D. For example, if my players wanted to plow the field successfully, I’d have them roll “Knowledge: Nature” or, if they don’t have it, “Knowledge: Local”. If they just want to fix the plow, it’d be a “Craft” check… etc. The problem is not with the rules, but with the plot and the setting. As the GM, I probably have a detailed map of the Drow caves and an org chart of their social structure; but I know squat about growing wheat. I could find out on Wikipedia, of course, but taking the time to do so would break the flow of the game.