D&D General How much control do DMs need?

[niklinna]

And games like most PbtA where the GM is explicitly constrained in what they do, has rules, principles, and agendas to follow, and can "cheat", which is something that some D&D DMs think a DM "can't do" because of how much control over the rules they are given. (But that's not an absolute, things like favoritism can end up not being tolerated by players otherwise willing to give a DM full in-game authority.)

Interesting point! The GM can only cheat when there are rules they can break.

Also reminds me of how my D&D group would jokingly rib the "cheaty DM" whenever they unveiled some new surprise on us. It was meant in fun, but it's a reflection of a hard kernel of truth.

 

[soviet]

My players call me Shai-Halud. You can guess which side of the GM control spectrum I fall upon.

Underground?

 

[Clint_L]

As of "feature or flaw": it's both.

When it comes to designing an actually good game, it's a flaw. Without it, the books are, for all intents and purposes, completely useless. Ooh, I have a book that tells me how much damage a sword does! Too bad it absolutely doesn't matter if I don't know what enemies PCs will fight with that sword.

When it comes to scamming people into giving you money for doing your job, though? Yeah, of course it's a feature! You can sell your books to people who have diametrically opposing view on how the game should be played, and then you also can sell them adventures, and then, you also can take a cut from anyone who fixes your rulebooks and adventures for you!

Wondering whether lack of, y'know, design is a feature or not because purposefully unfinished games sell is like wondering maybe lootboxes are actually good since so many people keep maxing out their parents' credit cards to buy them.

I think this is hyperbolic. Obviously the books are not "for all intents and purposes, completely useless" because people, in their millions, have been and are successfully playing the game such that they invest considerable time, energy, and money into it. I offer the premise that most people who continue playing the game do so because they find it fun. Though, as you allude to with your last point, it may just be that the game is addictive (I think it is probably both, to varying degrees).

I don't really understand your point about not knowing what enemies your sword will encounter - to me that is a feature, not a flaw. You prepare as best you can and then something else happens instead. Such is life. It's thrilling.

Isn't it interesting, if accidental, design that people with diametrically opposed views on how the game should be played can still play it and have fun? I play Fiasco pretty often, and the few times it has sucked was specifically because one player had a diametrically opposed view to the rest on what the game should be. It was quickly unplayable.

As a teacher, I recognize that a central authority in the DM can keep the game going even with players who might not think much alike. On the other hand, we continue to train people to defer to central authorities and not take responsibility for their own circumstances and learn to work together better. It's a pickle.

 

[niklinna]

Isn't it interesting, if accidental, design that people with diametrically opposed views on how the game should be played can still play it and have fun? I play Fiasco pretty often, and the few times it has sucked was specifically because one player had a diametrically opposed view to the rest on what the game should be. It was quickly unplayable.

Mm, I've had that exact problem with D&D. But maybe the DM could/should have done something about that? They have authority, after all!

To elaborate a bit, for my last group: It wasn't clear how we were "supposed to" be playing; the DM was trying to cater to the "it's not a good session unless we spend 90% of our time in combat" folks the "in it for the story" folks, they character-actor folks, the wacky hijinks folks, and more (we obviously had way too many players too).

This goes back to something I said in a thread about GM morals. If anybody at the table doesn't accept the premise, things are going to go poorly. (And for a premise to be accepted, it must be clear.)

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

So anything the PC wants to attempt is okay? What if the chandelier is nowhere near the ogre, out of reach, or if the PC is already did all they were allowed that turn. What if there is no chandelier because you're out in an open field? If you haven't had players ask for things that are clearly impossible you haven't played with some of people I have.

At the same time, that was my point. If the rules cover an action then you've just shifted the authority to the authors of the rules. Even if that rule is generic.

You can swing from the chandeliers in my games all you want. But there has to be a chandelier.

What do mean by 'anything'? It's an RPG, fictional position means something. DW isn't played on a grid, so ogre position simply comes down to what is already established. My advice would be to let the dice have a say in that. Maybe a complication is you fall short or something. As for 'an open field ' are you kidding me? That's a silly question.

So what you're saying is the whole concept of narrative low myth play is BS because you once played with some disruptive goofball who tries to do 5 impossible things every session. Sorry for you! Often these people are just bored of the style of play or something. I don't think this is related to a specific set of techniques.

 

[Oofta]

What do mean by 'anything'? It's an RPG, fictional position means something. DW isn't played on a grid, so ogre position simply comes down to what is already established. My advice would be to let the dice have a say in that. Maybe a complication is you fall short or something. As for 'an open field ' are you kidding me? That's a silly question.

So what you're saying is the whole concept of narrative low myth play is BS because you once played with some disruptive goofball who tries to do 5 impossible things every session. Sorry for you! Often these people are just bored of the style of play or something. I don't think this is related to a specific set of techniques.

I am making no comment on narrative low myth play one way or another. I'm saying that every game has a specific structure that is enforced somehow. If someone states something that is simply not possible given the current situation, someone has to call it out as impossible. The chandelier in an open field is obviously impossible (or at least highly improbable, 'cuz magic makes all things possible) so if someone declares they're swinging from the impossible light fixture, someone at the table is going to say no. If you say nobody would ever do that, or something else not possible, I'd call BS.

I currently play with people who sometimes try to do things that don't align with the constructs of the game. One in particular does it on a fairly regular basis. That doesn't make them a bad player, I quite enjoy playing with them. Since this is in a D&D game, as DM it may just mean they don't know how to achieve the goal they want to achieve or don't understand the scene (which may be my fault as DM). So when that happens it's a simple matter of "what are you trying to accomplish" and "can we figure out how to do that without breaking the narrative fiction of the game and the rules of the game".

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

This touches on an aspect of D&D-style games that really interests me.

When you play a game like, say Monsterhearts, there is a huge degree of interpretation built into the rules, so you can basically say that the rules cover everything, but really the rules are more like broad guidelines for improv storytelling. Conversely, when you play a board game or a tightly written war-game, the rules are strictly followed, and story is determined completely by the rules. Computer RPGs are the ultimately expression of the latter, so the rules exactly dictate what you can and cannot do (though this will likely change soon with the rise of chat-type AI).

Then you've got D&D-style games which are prescriptive to a significant degree but nevertheless allow enough narrative agency so that gaps in the rules are inevitable, and thus the need for a referee. We've discussed previously whether this is a feature or flaw of these types of games; I tend to lean towards feature. One thing that games like Monsterhearts, Fiasco, etc. require is extremely copacetic players. D&D allows for an abdication of player responsibility. Which, as some folks have pointed out, can be a huge attraction.

I largely disagree with your conclusion. Disengaged D&D players ARE a failure mode. The game is doomed in that case unless those players leave or become engaged. Dungeon World OTOH at least naturally requires them to do something. Sure, maybe they will just implode, but the vast majority of people who are at the table, want to play. They just need to figure out how. DW is very straightforward, any person who can read and write is fully qualified to play. Not that I think it's super hard to play classic games either, but they can take some initiative on the player's part.

 

[Umbran]

When it comes to scamming people into giving you money for doing your job, though?

Wondering whether lack of, y'know, design is a feature or not ...

Mod Note:
While WotC is entirely open to criticism, do note that berating people about how lousy a game they happen to love is eventually becomes a problem. Please be careful about that.

Unless you're just trolling of course.

If you feel someone has crossed the line from valid critique into trolling, making public accusations is not going to improve matters. So please don't.

Next time you feel someone has crossed the line, save yourself the aggravation - report them, and disengage.

After this, I expect the two of you to stop butting heads. If you can't manage that, it can be managed for you, but you probably won't like it.

 

[Enrahim2]

I largely disagree with your conclusion. Disengaged D&D players ARE a failure mode. The game is doomed in that case unless those players leave or become engaged. Dungeon World OTOH at least naturally requires them to do something. Sure, maybe they will just implode, but the vast majority of people who are at the table, want to play. They just need to figure out how. DW is very straightforward, any person who can read and write is fully qualified to play. Not that I think it's super hard to play classic games either, but they can take some initiative on the player's part.

I read what you replied to a bit differently. While I agree players disengaged in that they don't care is a failure mode, players disengaging in that they for a period do not contribute do not need to be so. I as a player (and indeed to some extent DM) often prefer to just kick back and watch what craziness the other players come up with for extended periods of time. And I had one player that was hardly ever speaking unless prompted what combat action their character was doing, but was clearly enjoying themself and was happily meeting up to the game every week for years.

Such players as me and him might be considered "disengaged" in the same sense as a troop tactically withrawn from active battle is not "engaged" but are still keenly observing the situation for opportunities, and can change the dynamics of the battlefield by it's mere presence.

As far as I can see it is this type of players the claim was that a game where no creative responsibility is left to the players might work better than one that dictates that each player need to contribute into the creative meltingpot.

 

[loverdrive]

I think this is hyperbolic. Obviously the books are not "for all intents and purposes, completely useless" because people, in their millions, have been and are successfully playing the game such that they invest considerable time, energy, and money into it. I offer the premise that most people who continue playing the game do so because they find it fun. Though, as you allude to with your last point, it may just be that the game is addictive (I think it is probably both, to varying degrees).

To use a somewhat dissimilar example: I don't particularly like Counter Strike. Well, I hate it — it's pretty much the exact opposite of my platonic ideal of the first person shooter. I do still play it and enjoy myself from time to time. With my friends. Because I enjoy spending time with friends.

Counter Strike does nothing for me, the experience is made by people who I enjoy interacting with.

The example is dissimilar, because Counter Strike is, well, a designed game. Probably a well-designed one, it just so happens that I prefer jumping around like crazy rather than stopping to take a shot, but I still can feel the designer's hand, every aspect of it is carefully crafted to deliver a particular experience.

D&D isn't like that. It leaves many decisions that should've been made by the designer to the players (or, well, one particular player) — they have to basically finish an unfinished game.

Counter Strike doesn't expect me to design my own gamemodes, weapons and maps. And if it did, the fact that it turned out well/horrible would be asinine to attribute Valve — I designed it. Well, if we pretend for a second that Counter Strike isn't a videogame, which needs to be programmed, modeled, animated and all that.

I don't really understand your point about not knowing what enemies your sword will encounter - to me that is a feature, not a flaw. You prepare as best you can and then something else happens instead. Such is life. It's thrilling.

Let's say I'm running a D&D game you're playing in and I decide that it's my setting and there's 1st Regiment of Tarrasque Cavalry behind every corner.

I have this authority. PHB says the rules are just guidelines, DMG stresses over and over that Challenge Ratings and stuff are guidelines. You can't say boo to that. You, the player, know that a sword deals D8+STR damage, the designer chose that number, but does it matter?

I ain't breaking any rules. Yet the campaign still sucks ass.

OK, maybe I'm not that cartoonish. Maybe I just suck at encounter design, and there's an unfair TPK every two sessions, even though I'm actively trying my best to avoid that. It just so happens that my best is actually not that great. You, the player, know that a sword deals D8+STR damage, but does it matter? I ain't breaking any rules, yet the campaign still sucks ass.

OK, maybe it's the opposite actually. Maybe I'm spineless, maybe I really like your characters and can't find it in me to hurt them. You, the player, I ain't breaking, campaign sucks ass.

OK, maybe I'm a goddess among mortal men, the campaign is awesome, combats are cool, the story is thrilling, my descriptions drip with atmosphere and you will tell the tale of great magnificent Alice Zhu, Queen of D&D, to your grandchildren with a bated breath, this campaign will be forever ingrained in your memory, long after you forget what year it is. Was it because of D&D, of brilliant design of WotC, or was it because of me?

Isn't it interesting, if accidental, design that people with diametrically opposed views on how the game should be played can still play it and have fun?

That is my point: it's not the design. It's utter lack of it.

People don't have fun because D&D is fun. People don't have a miserable time because D&D is miserable.

People have fun because the DM did WotC's job for WotC well, and made experience fun for the players. Or failed miserably (which is understandable: game design is hard, actually) and everyone had a bad time.