D&D General How much control do DMs need?

[Maxperson]

It's that constraints prevent them from screwing up.

Wait?! Do you really believe that having rules and constraints prevents people from screwing up? Because real life has a LOT to say in opposition to that one. Employers WISH that it worked that way.

Not only does nothing in the rules(constraints) prevent a screw up, the more of them you have the more likely you are to screw up and break one.

DMs and players are utter complete idiots that will run the game off the first cliff given the opportunity, and it's the designer's job to protect them from themselves.

Wow! That's a very dictatorial view of things. The peasants can't possibly govern themselves and would run themselves off of a cliff at the first opportunity, so it's up to me to make sure that they do what needs to be done!

My personal experience is that this is wrong and players and DMs are plenty capable of keeping themselves off of a cliff. Do they sometimes fail and fall anyway? Yep. That's a small price to pay for the freedom to play the way you like, though.

 

[clearstream]

It's that constraints prevent them from screwing up.

DMs and players are utter complete idiots that will run the game off the first cliff given the opportunity, and it's the designer's job to protect them from themselves.

I ran across something from Paul Czege that you might find sympathy with

Here's a thing. It's not true of board games. And it's not true of video games. But it's true of ttrpgs. They are fragile social constructs. They're dependent on hitting a certain, difficult chord of combined creativity, and group inspiration, and mechanical engagement, and thematic engagement, so that the best of them are hardly different than the worst in failing to deliver on their envisioned play experience for group after group after group.

And so critique after critique of game after game across the hobby are the same - "We were pretty excited about this game; here's the ways it let us down" - and when that's how we outwardly represent what we do, without a widely expressed narrative about the nature and challenges of social architectures, it just makes ttrpgs look to casual/potential players like a flailing and uninspiring endeavor.

And I don't really accept the argument that designers need this kind of critique to get better and make better games. Because even say it works, my next game is still going to fail for group after group after group, because of the nature and challenges of social architectures, and will still warrant a "here's the ways it let us down" critique.

I think this aspect of ttrpgs is why they warrant their own, alternative tradition of critique, one that gives them the energy they deserve, rather than detailing them for their disappointments.

 

[Maxperson]

DM: "Six months ago, you killed Jareth."
Pat, whose PC is now dead: "...who now?"
DM: "Jareth. Mercenary, back in Townsville?"
Pat: "I literally have no idea who you're talking about. That was six months ago. I barely even remember what we did in Townsville."
DM: "Well, he was part of an assassin guild. They put a bounty on your head. Someone finally came to collect it."
Pat: "And...I was supposed to know any of this how, exactly?!"
DM: "Guess them's the breaks."

Perhaps 6 months ago when you killed Jareth as punishment for expertly breaking into the mayors house while everyone was asleep and punching his dagger up through the base of the mayors skull in what was clearly an expert kill, you should have inquired further. The clues were there. If you didn't see or pursue them and then 6 months later it comes back to bite you, that's not on the DM or a DM gotcha.

DM: "A red dragon lands on the party. Roll for Initiative."
Sam: "Can't we talk to it? Reason with it? Or try to run away?"
DM: "No. You are scorched by dragonfire. Get a new character sheet. Everyone else, roll for Initiative."

It seems that all of those rumors talking about the ancient red north of the town of Wefryeverysooften and the dragon encircling the mountain on the map seem to be true. Perhaps you shouldn't have gone there at 5th level and brought this eminently avoidable circumstance upon yourselves.

DM: "As the battle continues, the necromancer's forces recoiling from your daylight, you see her cackle madly. A portal of woven shadow opens, and a squad of soot-blackened skeletons comes through it."
Eli: "I thought we destroyed her skeletons last week."
DM: "These are new skeletons. Their blackened bones probably got that way in a fire."
Eli: "Then what was the point of destroying her skeleton army if she could just build a whole new one in a few days?!"
DM: "You still weakened her. She just rebuilt."
Eli: "She rebuilt. Instantly. Just like that."
DM: "No, you see, she had standing orders to collect remains from nearby events and there was a fire in Cityburough just after you destroyed her skeletons."

All three of these are scenes that have, to one degree or another, actually been defended in this very thread.

Would you rather fight 20 skeletons or 40? There's nothing about a necromancer who is building up that is a gotcha or unfair. Hitting her and keeping her forces down is a sound tactic. Expecting her to just sit there and not add more after a week of you guys sitting around is silly.

Of course you can come up with examples of a bad DM abusing authority, but assuming the DM is not bad(And DMs very rarely are), it will go more like I describe above than how you describe it in the quotes.

 

[Mort]

Perhaps 6 months ago when you killed Jareth as punishment for expertly breaking into the mayors house while everyone was asleep and punching his dagger up through the base of the mayors skull in what was clearly an expert kill, you should have inquired further. The clues were there. If you didn't see or pursue them and then 6 months later it comes back to bite you, that's not on the DM or a DM gotcha.

It seems that all of those rumors talking about the ancient red north of the town of Wefryeverysooften and the dragon encircling the mountain on the map seem to be true. Perhaps you shouldn't have gone there at 5th level and brought this eminently avoidable circumstance upon yourselves.

Would you rather fight 20 skeletons or 40? There's nothing about a necromancer who is building up that is a gotcha or unfair. Hitting her and keeping her forces down is a sound tactic. Expecting her to just sit there and not add more after a week of you guys sitting around is silly.

Of course you can come up with examples of a bad DM abusing authority, but assuming the DM is not bad(And DMs very rarely are), it will go more like I describe above than how you describe it in the quotes.

At the end of the day, it's all about trust.

In D&D the DM has near absolute authority on the game side of it. BUT if the players don't trust that the DM is using that authority for the fun of the table that authority is almost meaningless. Players won't engage like that could and the game will, likely, not be fun and peter out.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

Perhaps 6 months ago when you killed Jareth as punishment for expertly breaking into the mayors house while everyone was asleep and punching his dagger up through the base of the mayors skull in what was clearly an expert kill, you should have inquired further. The clues were there. If you didn't see or pursue them and then 6 months later it comes back to bite you, that's not on the DM or a DM gotcha.

The explicit example given previously was that there was no such evidence. Had the players inquired, yes, they would have been (potentially) able to find out--but there were zero such forward-facing clues given. Hence why I used it as an example.

It seems that all of those rumors talking about the ancient red north of the town of Wefryeverysooften and the dragon encircling the mountain on the map seem to be true. Perhaps you shouldn't have gone there at 5th level and brought this eminently avoidable circumstance upon yourselves.

The explicit intent of the example is that there is ZERO warning. Nothing. No preamble, no rumors, no warning, nothing. At all.

Because I was asked for examples of how things could be fair or unfair, and someone explicitly mentioned a red dragon randomly attacking the party. Not just being around, actually attacking out of the blue with no warning.

Would you rather fight 20 skeletons or 40? There's nothing about a necromancer who is building up that is a gotcha or unfair. Hitting her and keeping her forces down is a sound tactic. Expecting her to just sit there and not add more after a week of you guys sitting around is silly.

Except, again, the specific point of the example was that the characters had eliminated ALL of the necromancer's skeletons, and the GM knew that, and then conjured up a reason why she would immediately have as many skeletons as she needed later. Because the explicit description given by other posters above was, as long as there's any narrative justification they could give for why someone could have forces just show up, they can, no matter what has happened to those forces nor how much the party has done--all but explicitly saying reinforcements as the plot demands. Because it's not possible for the party to be omniscient, therefore anything they don't explicitly know is totally fair game for the DM if they've invented a story (that they have not told the players) to explain it.

Of course you can come up with examples of a bad DM abusing authority, but assuming the DM is not bad(And DMs very rarely are), it will go more like I describe above than how you describe it in the quotes.

Because someone EXPLICITLY asked me (well, the thread) for examples of what "unfairness" would look like! I was literally giving someone what they wanted examples of. And all of them were directly inspired by things real people, in this very thread, talked about as things that actually happened to them or their players!

Here are the quotes, for your viewing pleasure:

So what is your answer to "is it okay for the game to be unfair?"

Define "unfair".

I haven't pulled a single thing out of either of these posts. Those are full, unedited quotes.

 

[Maxperson]

At the end of the day, it's all about trust.

In D&D the DM has near absolute authority on the game side of it. BUT if the players don't trust that the DM is using that authority for the fun of the table that authority is almost meaningless. Players won't engage like that could and the game will, likely, not be fun and peter out.

If you don't trust the DM, you have no business playing in that game. You're wasting your time, his time and the time of everyone else in that game. Trust is essential.

 

[Maxperson]

The explicit example given previously was that there was no such evidence. Had the players inquired, yes, they would have been (potentially) able to find out--but there were zero such forward-facing clues given. Hence why I used it as an example.

A failure to look further at something that bears looking at is at the very least a partial failure on the part of the players. I'm also assuming because prep is a large component of this conversation, that the details were prepped and around to be discovered.

When it comes to examples being typed here, pretty much all of them fail to be as detailed as actual game play because it would take forever to come up with all of those details and what a party of PCs would do. Scenarios should be given at least a little latitude to account for that.

The explicit intent of the example is that there is ZERO warning. Nothing. No preamble, no rumors, no warning, nothing. At all.

Because I was asked for examples of how things could be fair or unfair, and someone explicitly mentioned a red dragon randomly attacking the party. Not just being around, actually attacking out of the blue with no warning.

If there's no warning whatsoever, no way to have figured it out, no way to avoid the situation, and no way to survive, then yes that is absolutely unfair. It's also not a situation that I have encountered since getting out of highschool in the late 80s and we were immature enough to let our emotions into game play on occasion. It just doesn't happen enough to worry about it.

Except, again, the specific point of the example was that the characters had eliminated ALL of the necromancer's skeletons, and the GM knew that, and then conjured up a reason why she would immediately have as many skeletons as she needed later.

A week later is not immediate. Given a week I would expect the necromancer to have recovered some or all of her resources.

Because the explicit description given by other posters above was, as long as there's any narrative justification they could give for why someone could have forces just show up, they can, no matter what has happened to those forces nor how much the party has done--all but explicitly saying reinforcements as the plot demands. Because it's not possible for the party to be omniscient, therefore anything they don't explicitly know is totally fair game for the DM if they've invented a story (that they have not told the players) to explain it.

I also don't believe in just popping forces in on a dime. If they wipe out the skeletons and it is truly immediate, she's not going to get more skeletons just because I might want the situation to be more of a challenge. I know some DMs do that, because illusionism is a thing, but I view that as depriving players of agency(railroading) and I simply won't do that.

 

[Mort]

If you don't trust the DM, you have no business playing in that game. You're wasting your time, his time and the time of everyone else in that game. Trust is essential.

Agreed, but it often has to be established. You don't necessarily know if you trust the DM until the trust is tested - so the DM should, hopefully, establish some trust before testing it.

Example:

I have a friend who likes ambitious campaigns.

He starts a new robotech-rifts crossover campaign. 4 new players (they knew him and had gamed with him, but he had never DM'd for them) and me (who had seen him DM many times over the years).

Very first scene - he describes us waking up at our base and a stranger is approaching. Everyone meets the stranger who starts giving all these ominous portents about bad things about to happen, we need to be ready etc. etc. He has this whole monologue which is suddenly interrupted by a horde of rats over-running the base. One of the players is a pugnacious sort and starts trash talking the stranger (stranger is full of it, why should we listen etc.). The rats converge on the trash talking PC and swarm him (there have been no rolls of any kind as of this point). DM hands the trash talker an envelope and tells him to read it in the next room.

But the player (of the trash talker) is red faced and furious. He tears up the envelope, calls the entire scenario BS and storms out.

The DM, backpedaling and a bit startled, explains that the envelope just had a note that explained the Player's PC woke up (it had all been a communal dream sequence - meant to be a warning of things to come).

Unfortunately, the other players were pretty put off. The DM had forgotten to establish trust with the table (other than me) and the ambitious attempt went poorly. The whole attempt at a campaign fell apart right there.

 

[Aldarc]

Agreed, but it often has to be established. You don't necessarily know if you trust the DM until the trust is tested - so the DM should, hopefully, establish some trust before testing it.

Example:

I have a friend who likes ambitious campaigns.

He starts a new robotech-rifts crossover campaign. 4 new players (they knew him and had gamed with him, but he had never DM'd for them) and me (who had seen him DM many times over the years).

Very first scene - he describes us waking up at our base and a stranger is approaching. Everyone meets the stranger who starts giving all these ominous portents about bad things about to happen, we need to be ready etc. etc. He has this whole monologue which is suddenly interrupted by a horde of rats over-running the base. One of the players is a pugnacious sort and starts trash talking the stranger (stranger is full of it, why should we listen etc.). The rats converge on the trash talking PC and swarm him (there have been no rolls of any kind as of this point). DM hands the trash talker an envelope and tells him to read it in the next room.

But the player (of the trash talker) is red faced and furious. He tears up the envelope, calls the entire scenario BS and storms out.

The DM, backpedaling and a bit startled, explains that the envelope just had a note that explained the Player's PC woke up (it had all been a communal dream sequence - meant to be a warning of things to come).

Unfortunately, the other players were pretty put off. The DM had forgotten to establish trust with the table (other than me) and the ambitious attempt went poorly. The whole attempt at a campaign fell apart right there.

Sorry, but that player sounds like they have anger issues.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

Agreed, but it often has to be established. You don't necessarily know if you trust the DM until the trust is tested - so the DM should, hopefully, establish some trust before testing it.

Ah, but don't you see, the players should just instantly trust the GM! Because they're working so hard, you see. They're owed the players' trust.

So many advocates for the "absolute power" GM display the belief that they don't need to earn trust because they are entitled to it. And, in a bitter irony, you often see the very same people complain about "player entitlement"!

Sorry, but that player sounds like they have anger issues.

While that may be true, it doesn't diminish the core point. Trust IS essential here--and far too many GMs presume they already have it, whether innocently (as in the case of the GM Mort described) or...less so.

It's one of the reasons why I bang my "genuine player enthusiasm*" drum so hard. Doing everything you can to support genuine player enthusiasm is one of the best, and most productive, ways to earn your players' trust. Failure to support genuine player enthusiasm is one of the most effective ways to prove you don't merit your players' trust.

*And, as usual, this means it can't be exploitative (contrary to the spirit of the game/table), coercive (forcing other participants to play as this player wants against their will), or abusive (intended to cause harm/distress/etc. to another participant)