Is the DM the most important person at the table

[Fenris-77]

A player could come up with the name, position, relationships, and general skillset of an NPC without actually writing the NPC's character rules. That, for me, reflects pretty well what the player's character would know about the NPC, without knowing precisely what the NPCs stats are. The point isn't just to have the players do this btw, it's to sit around a table and build setting together, expanding on each other's ideas, connecting things, playing yes and... - there's more in play there than just transferring paperwork from the DMs pile to the player's. Something like this:

Krom Stonehand - leader of the local Bashers - big, bald, and unsavory, a reputation for savagery and strangely cute tattoos (just don't mention them), likes knives

trusted lieutenant in the thieves guild, runs a tight crew thru fear not smarts, gets along well with NPC A, hated by NPC B.

Crew based out of a warehouse in the docks, sign out front says "Trishorn Imports", hangs out at the Crown and Anchor on most nights.

Speaking as a DM, that's a lot of useful information. I can build that NPC stat block in a heartbeat. Plus, now that player already knows the above info, so when Krom comes up in play I won't have to spoon feed information about him.

 

[Nagol]

A player could come up with the name, position, relationships, and general skillset of an NPC without actually writing the NPC's character rules. That, for me, reflects pretty well what the player's character would know about the NPC, without knowing precisely what the NPCs stats are. The point isn't just to have the players do this btw, it's to sit around a table and build setting together, expanding on each other's ideas, connecting things, playing yes and... - there's more in play there than just transferring paperwork from the DMs pile to the player's. Something like this:

Krom Stonehand - leader of the local Bashers - big, bald, and unsavory, a reputation for savagery and strangely cute tattoos (just don't mention them), likes knives

trusted lieutenant in the thieves guild, runs a tight crew thru fear not smarts, gets along well with NPC A, hated by NPC B.

Crew based out of a warehouse in the docks, sign out front says "Trishorn Imports", hangs out at the Crown and Anchor on most nights.

Speaking as a DM, that's a lot of useful information. I can build that NPC stat block in a heartbeat. Plus, now that player already knows the above info, so when Krom comes up in play I won't have to spoon feed information about him.

Sure, I suppose. Per NPC that wouldn't cut much time off the construction and would potentially introduce anachronisms you'd have to be watchful for. If the campaign uses a few hundred NPCs the player sketch out, the savings might add up.

 

[Ovinomancer]

No. No one has argued that. The primary argument has been nothing has been presented that in fact would reduce DM time for the specific request (a currently running 5e game). A secondary argument has been there is no indication players are willing to adopt consistent prep time of any duration. After examining the Dirty Dungeon, it is extremely gameable by rational players and would need substantial alteration -- basically a complete revision to make it into any game I'd run. Even in its current form, it strongly cuts into table time probably by an hour or more per use.

Whether or not collaborative exploration makes sense depends mostly on the type of exploration in the campaign. It there is something for the players to actually discover, as opposed to reveal at the table, collaborative construction won't work. For example, I couldn't tell my players enough to let them intelligibly offer exploration elements with respect to the Conspiracy-X campaign. All the factions act within very specific guidelines and the point of much of the exploration is to unravel what those are.

This is.. well, I don't know what Hussar said so I can only say that this is a pretty strong distortion of what other people have said. Firstly, if you state a challenge in terms of the baked in assumptions that cannot be changed and then challenge people to show how not changing those baked in assumptions can lead to less work in following those baked in assumptions... yeah, that's going to be hard to do. I mean, really, you're asking that people show you techniques for lowering your prep while meeting the requirement that your prep not lower because that would distort all of the prep you've already done. Impossible. What people are suggesting is that changing those assumptions can lead to lower prep, so if you're ruling out the argument to start, it's not victory to show no one can prove differently.

Secondly, a lot of the suggestions here are on how to share prep in play, not expect players to prep the game outside of play and show up to share notes beforehand. If you make what's usually done in prep part of play, it's 1) not prep anymore, and 2) can be much more collaborative and load sharing. Again, you're defining the required proof in terms that exclude the arguments made and claiming victory. Seems pretty empty -- you refuse to countenance the actual argument made and then declare it bunk because you've refused to countenance it. Okay, you win?

And, yes, if you have a constructed campaign with secrets hidden from the player but still unalterable aspects of the fictional world, then it is impossible to expect players to collaborate effectively, since you cannot allow any creation that violates the hidden secrets or your prepared, but unplayed, plot points and the players cannot know enough about things they don't know to be useful in providing information. Again, you've defined success so that it only favors your beliefs. The counter argument is don't start with Conspiracy-X if you're going to build a collaborative game. Ruling that out to start seems more like sitting on the scale than placing a thumb on it.

 

[Imaro]

I mean, seriously, game elitism in the service of supporting your preferred style of play? Don't forget that TSR ran into trouble and sold to WotC because they lost market share against White Wolf, which didn't feature a game like D&D. 5e is a very good game -- bland enough to not rankle and just spicy enough to be enjoyable. It's an absolute marketing success, although a good bit of that is serendipity rather than a comment of the quality of 5e. 5e is, undoubtedly, the current king of the market for RPGs, no close competitor. I don't think saying that a very popular indie game without all of the benefits the current edition of 5e has is somehow lesser because it doesn't have as large a market share. And I don't think that you, as someone who likes 5e, inherits any legitimacy from this. Nor does 5e inherit any more legitimacy because people like it.

Wait what?? I always considered the White Wolf games of the 90's to be very traditional, especially in their GM/Player duties... Or are you saying because it wasn't euro-medieval fantasy?

 

[Nagol]

This is.. well, I don't know what Hussar said so I can only say that this is a pretty strong distortion of what other people have said. Firstly, if you state a challenge in terms of the baked in assumptions that cannot be changed and then challenge people to show how not changing those baked in assumptions can lead to less work in following those baked in assumptions... yeah, that's going to be hard to do. I mean, really, you're asking that people show you techniques for lowering your prep while meeting the requirement that your prep not lower because that would distort all of the prep you've already done. Impossible. What people are suggesting is that changing those assumptions can lead to lower prep, so if you're ruling out the argument to start, it's not victory to show no one can prove differently.

Secondly, a lot of the suggestions here are on how to share prep in play, not expect players to prep the game outside of play and show up to share notes beforehand. If you make what's usually done in prep part of play, it's 1) not prep anymore, and 2) can be much more collaborative and load sharing. Again, you're defining the required proof in terms that exclude the arguments made and claiming victory. Seems pretty empty -- you refuse to countenance the actual argument made and then declare it bunk because you've refused to countenance it. Okay, you win?

And, yes, if you have a constructed campaign with secrets hidden from the player but still unalterable aspects of the fictional world, then it is impossible to expect players to collaborate effectively, since you cannot allow any creation that violates the hidden secrets or your prepared, but unplayed, plot points and the players cannot know enough about things they don't know to be useful in providing information. Again, you've defined success so that it only favors your beliefs. The counter argument is don't start with Conspiracy-X if you're going to build a collaborative game. Ruling that out to start seems more like sitting on the scale than placing a thumb on it.

I didn't ask anything @GameOgre did.

The initial techniques offered would reduce prep in a FATE game (or similar play style game) during worldbuilding. It's not a stretch to point out that doesn't solve anything for GameOgre already running a 5e game.

 

[Imaro]

The issue isn't that we're using techniques that are different... it's that the techniques are fundamentally changing the gameplay and playstyle of D&D. In other words why at this point don't I just got play BitD or FATE since that's the experience I'm trying to force D&D into. Well the answer is probably because I want to have the D&D play experience/playtyle thus why i'm not playing BitD or FATE at the moment. Which brings me back to something I commented on earlier... the answer seems to be play a different game, which really isn't an answer.

 

[Ovinomancer]

Okay, the online element is definitely a piece that I have minimal experience with. I do play in an online game through Roll20, but I have not yet GMed D&D online. The game I play in uses the published material from WotC, which includes the maps and handouts and the like.

I am planning on running an online game soon, but it's not going to be D&D, and will be theater of the mind.

Do you enjoy drawing all the maps? Honestly, for me, that would be something I'd eliminate. I mean, an encounter map if you're playing with minis, or with tokens online, is a bit of a necessary evil. But are these other maps you're providing necessary?

Would using published material be an option? repurposing images and maps from a published adventure?




When you say you created nine NPCs, what do you mean? What level of detail? Are they each unique, or can some of them use the same or similar stat blocks?

I tend to bank NPCs and stat blocks for future use as needed. So if my PCs are facing an evil wizard, I already have a stat block ready to go, with maybe a couple of tweaks in order based on level.



Why do you need this level of detail months later? Please don't take that as a challenge, I'm curious.

I generally don't take notes during play, nor post play until I do my prep for the next session. Then I kind of take the previous session as a starting point.



Here's where my inexperience with DMing online limits me.....what goes into designing an encounter for play in Roll20?



That's cool. I don't have PC backstories at hand like that, but they're generally well known, and my players are all personal friends who I can reach out to if I need a detail like that. Generally speaking, their histories are all relevant enough to play that I have a good sense of them. But I definitely tailor things for these specific characters.



Treasure is a very minimal concern for me. I tend to give my bad guys some gear, especially consumables and other small scale items, and then kind of determine additional stuff on the fly. I find that observing play gives me ideas of what may be in order for the PCs. Again, I do kind of tailor things to the specific PCs.

I play on roll20, I love maps, and I spend most of my prep building multiple interesting maps for my games (I like dynamic spaces). That said, I spend far less time on prep than @GameOgre does per session and seem to have a much better time of it as, even to start, I could pretty quickly build maps in roll20. I think, though, that may be because I tend to build map assets from the roll20 marketplace so sizing is done already? Sizing can be a pain if you're grabbing map images from other places, that's true. I've also had only a handful of issues with lag causing problems in about three years of roll20 play. Certainly less than 10. I dunno what the delta there is.

I also run BitD on roll20. I do almost nothing at all for that. Maybe look for neat handout images, if I'm inclined to, but that's limited to general ambiance pics because, as you know, it's hard to guess what's happening next in a Blades game.

 

[Ovinomancer]

I didn't ask anything @GameOgre did.

Ah, sorry, it's hard to tell sometimes if a complaint is from the complainant or just a white knight who then casually discards the argument when challenged. My apologies.

The initial techniques offered would reduce prep in a FATE game (or similar play style game) during worldbuilding. It's not a stretch to point out that doesn't solve anything for GameOgre already running a 5e game.

Sorry, is this your opinion, or are you guessing what someone else's opinion is? It would be good to know if you're putting forth the exact argument I just addressed or if this is just you putting forth someone else's argument again after saying it wasn't yours and you don't have any interest in discussing it.

 

[Nagol]

Wait what?? I always considered the White Wolf games of the 90's to be very traditional, especially in their GM/Player duties... Or are you saying because it wasn't euro-medieval fantasy?

WoD was an early attempt at a "Nar" game as opposed to D&D's "trad" game play. Ultimately, the GM / players roles ended up similar with the GM being expected to simply use enough force to force play into a strong narrative. The tools to provide a stronger natural 'Nar' experience hadn't been invented yet.

 

[Nagol]

Ah, sorry, it's hard to tell sometimes if a complaint is from the complainant or just a white knight who then casually discards the argument when challenged. My apologies.

Sorry, is this your opinion, or are you guessing what someone else's opinion is? It would be good to know if you're putting forth the exact argument I just addressed or if this is just you putting forth someone else's argument again after saying it wasn't yours and you don't have any interest in discussing it.

@GameOrgre came out and stated where he spent his time. Dresden Files style shared worldbuilding isn't a fit. Feel free to read the thread and catch up so I don't need to summarize.