D&D General How much control do DMs need?

[loverdrive]

Um... this reads like:

The rules don't have gaps, even though we use people and extra rules to fill gaps.

I think there's a difference between inventing rules because existing rigid rules ain't cutting it and applying rules that require human interpretation.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

If you don't have limits you're playing Calvinball. Some person or group of people decide how to resolve everything that happens in the game. Changing terminology or details of how that is done doesn't make a difference.

Okay. I don't see DW as being Calvinball. I also vehemently disagree that "changing [the] details of  how that is done" makes no difference. It can, in fact, make an enormous difference. The tools and concepts used matter hugely for the final outcome.

Where you draw the line, where you place the goalposts on that spectrum doesn't make a game inherently better or worse. Some people, like me, prefer a central narrator and judge, others prefer games without a GM.

Okay. I don't really see the connection. You asked what stops someone from attempting something impossible in DW, like swinging from an explicitly nonexistent chandelier because the party is out in a field, and not inside a great hall. The simple answer is, "Because DW explicitly only permits things that are consistent with the established fiction." That is a limit. It isn't Calvinball. The method used actually matters.

The tools used (Agendas, Principles, and concepts like "you have to do it to do it") critical to make this work. Abandoning these tools is almost universally unwise for the same reason that abandoning saws, hammers, files, and drills is almost universally unwise for anyone wanting to do woodworking. You can do that. But if you want to achieve the same kinds of results, you will end up reinventing the very things you are attempting to eschew, just without the benefit of testing and refining that the originals had. You cannot do woodworking without tools equivalent to a hammer and a saw and a file etc. Likewise, if playing a Story Now game inspired by D&D, you will generally reinvent the same things DW does, such as GMs needing to answer questions honestly or needing to "think off screen too" and "be a fan of the characters," because those things are what lead to the kind of experiences DW offers.

 

[Umbran]

I think there's a difference between inventing rules because existing rigid rules ain't cutting it and applying rules that require human interpretation.

While they are different, for purposes of this discussion, they are both covering gaps.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

I think there's a difference between inventing rules because existing rigid rules ain't cutting it and applying rules that require human interpretation.

As far as I can tell, there are three general methods by which rules may be implemented.

1. Individual, discrete rules for each occasion. E.g., because weather affects movement, discrete weather effects should have explicitly-specified impacts. Because ambient temperature affects health, definite temperature ranges should be defined and clearly specified.
2. Universal, abstract rules which apply to genuinely all situations. E.g., Fate uses aspects for...everything, as I understand it. Or certain forms of the "saving throw" idea, since "roll to avoid <Bad Thing>" is pretty abstract. A mechanic meant to be sufficiently abstract that there is almost nothing it cannot be applied to, though it may require human effort to translate that abstraction into a concrete application.
3. What I call "extensible framework rules." They aren't the individual specificity of type 1, nor the (near-)absolute universality of type 2. Instead, they are defined for particular sets or ranges of situations. Those sets can be infinitely large, without being "literally (almost) all possible things." An extensible framework is somewhat abstract (since it can range across anything within its relevant set), but easy to translate into concrete things (because it does not have to apply to dang-near everything.) Unfortunately, this means such things can also be the worst of both worlds, requiring too much specificity to be generally useful, yet too abstract to make clean, obvious sense of.

Most systems use a mix of types 1 and 2. Fate leans very very hard on type 2, while 3rd edition D&D leans very very hard on type 1.

Now, separate from that consideration, there is the question of whether the rules are comprehensive, or not. A system going for type 1 is going to struggle mightily with absolute comprehensive coverage, because you would need infinitely many rules for that. However, as long as the places not covered are rare and generally not very important, it may be possible to get effectively comprehensive coverage with only finitely many rules....but it will usually still be a lot of them, which is a weakness.

A system going for type 2 has it easy in this sense, because a truly universal mechanic is designed to be comprehensive. However, as noted, the closer you get to true universality, the less the mechanic actually tells you about how to play and what to do. You are offloading specificity to the end user. This may be a huge benefit, but sometimes questions of that nature can be real tricky and it would be nice to just have a clear, straightforward answer. If an Aspect is genuinely anything that could be relevant, knowing that something is an aspect doesn't really tell you anything except that it is relevant.

If someone is approaching things from a type-1-centric view, then type 2 looks like constantly inventing new rules for every situation. Conversely, coming from a type-2-centric view, type 1 looks like a byzantine morass that still needs its edge cases papered over anyway. Type 3, being midway between, may be either a refreshing approach to thorny problems or a frustrating lack of commitment to worthwhile goals.

 

[Oofta]

Okay. I don't see DW as being Calvinball. I also vehemently disagree that "changing [the] details of  how that is done" makes no difference. It can, in fact, make an enormous difference. The tools and concepts used matter hugely for the final outcome.

I never said, nor implied that DW was Calvinball. Just that there was a different assumptions on the spectrum of how rules are enforced and by whom.

Okay. I don't really see the connection. You asked what stops someone from attempting something impossible in DW, like swinging from an explicitly nonexistent chandelier because the party is out in a field, and not inside a great hall. The simple answer is, "Because DW explicitly only permits things that are consistent with the established fiction." That is a limit. It isn't Calvinball. The method used actually matters.

So someone, some person or people establishes the fiction. Then the rules tell you what to do with that established fiction. Your point? Because that's exactly what I'm talking about.

The tools used (Agendas, Principles, and concepts like "you have to do it to do it") critical to make this work. Abandoning these tools is almost universally unwise for the same reason that abandoning saws, hammers, files, and drills is almost universally unwise for anyone wanting to do woodworking. You can do that. But if you want to achieve the same kinds of results, you will end up reinventing the very things you are attempting to eschew, just without the benefit of testing and refining that the originals had. You cannot do woodworking without tools equivalent to a hammer and a saw and a file etc. Likewise, if playing a Story Now game inspired by D&D, you will generally reinvent the same things DW does, such as GMs needing to answer questions honestly or needing to "think off screen too" and "be a fan of the characters," because those things are what lead to the kind of experiences DW offers.

Again, you're just going back to technical terms used by the game which doesn't have anything at all to do with what I'm talking about. I don't know how to state it any clearer. Different games use different options to enforce structure. Ultimately someone makes the call on whether or not decisions stay within the bounds of that structure. You can't just pull out that ADM (anti-dragon-missile) in DW unless it's been established as an option.

I happen to like D&D having a DM who makes the final call. When I DM sometimes that includes adding a chandelier because it makes sense for the scene and I just didn't think to add it into the narrative description so the player asks if there is a chandelier to swing from. Sometimes there is no chandelier but there will be another option that I will suggest based on what they're trying to accomplish. Sometimes their actions just aren't going to happen.

Unless you're playing Calvinball (i.e. "I fire my ADM at the dragon and it does 1 bazillion points of damage killing it instantly") that structure, those rules and limits are enforced somehow. Even if that enforcement is based on the social contract of the group.

 

[Clint_L]

I think there's a difference between inventing rules because existing rigid rules ain't cutting it and applying rules that require human interpretation.

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.

 

[soviet]

This is really about Task Resolution vs Conflict Resolution. In a task resolution game, even one that's very detailed, there will be gaps where the particular toolset provided by the book doesn't seem to apply and the GM needs to step in to make a ruling. In a conflict resolution game the connection between the abilities you use and the goal you seek is much more fluid so those gaps are less likely.

 

[Oofta]

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.

For me when I'm running a PC in D&D a big part of the draw is abdication of control over the world outside of my character. That let's me focus on my PC and helps me see the world through only their eyes. That's different from abdicating control over the rules of the game. There's a lot of times even as an experienced DM I'll ask if anyone understands a rule better than I do, especially when it comes to their character's class.

 

[DarkCrisis]

I played Shadowrun Anarchy once that has a similar play style. I hated it.

Why?

Because it got stupid. People trying to one up each other or take plot shortcuts etc.

We agreed after that to just run it like a normal RPG.

 

[loverdrive]

While they are different, for purposes of this discussion, they are both covering gaps.

Applying Fate rules doesn't require ad-hoc gamedesign. You are just applying rules, and the rules leverage the fact that there will be a human being at the table who can do things trivial for a human being, but impossible for a piece of paper with words written on it. Hm, I wonder, can aspect *The Best Marksman This Side Of Volga help with shooting someone in the face?

One thing that games like Monsterhearts, Fiasco, etc. require is extremely copacetic players.

I would vehemently disagree in two different ways.

First, Monsterhearts is a game with a pretty traditional GM role. The only narrative authority players get is the one MC gives them. It's just Monsterhearts, unlike D&D, is actually a designed game, where Avery bothered to write the most important rules: how to run it, so MC is bound by the rules.

Second, nah, they don't really require any better players than D&D does. Playing Monsterhearts is as simple as runnig it: you just follow the damn rules exactly as they are written in the book. That's it. It's no rocket science.

If anything, my experience shows that D&D and games of its ilk are guaranteed to suck if the players are passive and cautious (which is exactly what the game encourages them to be), while Monsterhearts works very simple: you either swim, or you drown. Even if the players are passive, the MC will propel the game forward (as "Everyone looks at you and waits for what happens next" is a trigger for an MC move).