Is the DM the most important person at the table

[Nagol]

In D&D 4e, at least, it's generally not a big deal if a player knows a stat-block. What's dramatic in 4e is the way things play out, not the sprigning of surprises. I don't know how different 5e is in this respect.

But in any event in 5e, as in 4e, I think statblocks are mostly interesting for combat. (Generally when I see 5e statblocks they don't include Ideals, Bonds or Flaws that would form part of social resolution.) The stuff that Fenris-77 has suggested is ample to run a NPC in a D&D non-combat situation.

I suspect even in 4e it is revealing that the NPC has a level and combat powers and isn't just a 'common person' or minion.

 

[Fanaelialae]

I think I'm missing something here. Misremembering the score is a metaphor - what is it a metaphor for?

It isn't a metaphor so much as an example of the sort of thing that could easily be mixed up between sessions but have significant consequences in game.

If everyone at the table accepts that Bernard, who was introduced as a gnome, is actually a halfling, what's the problem? If someone remembers part way through the scenario that something got mixed up that's a different story obviously, but how big a risk is that? How often does it happen? If we're talking about whether GMing needs to be hard or not, what level of prophylaxis against possible problems do we think is appropriate?

In my Traveller game, when the PCs assaulted a military outpost, it was important to know what range various people were from one another, because Traveller needs that information for its combat resolution system. It was generated randomly, during play, using the appropriate mechanical process. But once the combat is resolved, there's no need to have that information any more. It's almost certainly never going to come up again.

The PCs have bribed NPCs, tricked them and in some cases swindled them. But from my point of view most of those NPCs are done - I've got no interest in re-introducing them into the game, and the players don't seem to either. Of course if a player were to wonder, "What ever happened to that guy who we screwed out of such-and-such" then that might be my cue to bring the character back in. But at that point, why would I not follow the player's cue all the way? Even if their memory is faulty, if mine's no better then nothing is lost by going along with them.

Perhaps I'm underestimating the intricacy of some of these games that you and others are talking about. My judgements are based on what I've played myself, and what I've read (both modules for games, and reports by others of their play). I just don't see how extensive note-taking is necessary. And I don't see how, if the players aren't taking note of things that they might want to leverage, the GM taking notes is somehow necessary or even helpful to bringing about such leveraging.

I think there's been a miscommunication because I never advocated for extensive GM note taking. I am advocating for writing down anything that I (the GM) believe to be important. I think the mix up may have been because I said earlier in this thread that I sometimes take extensive notes when I am a player (but that I would never expect such of anyone else).

As for why Bernard's description matters, it's because it lends to immersion. I don't want to start describing Bernard as a blind halfling and have some player ask, "Wasn't he a red headed gnome?" because that takes us all out of the moment.

And yes, before I started taking notes this sort of thing did happen to me. Not often per se, but far more often than I would have liked. Writing it down saves me from those mistakes because it not only creates a record that I can check against, but also because the act of writing it down reinforces it in my memory (meaning I'm less likely to need to check my notes later).

Physical locations of bodies is fairly trivial information in most cases, so you're right in that case. Even if it becomes important, it's easy to say that someone (or something) moved the body. Someone's species is less prone to change.

I try to reuse NPCs when possible. I find it creates a sense of a persistent world. Players are also more likely to form relationships with NPCs if they make multiple appearances, even if they weren't really relevant in the first place. Not always, but often enough that it's a worthwhile technique IMO.

 

[Nagol]

If someone remembers it on their way to the fridge, then why can't they write it down? Or just commit it to memory?

Because they are at the fridge? And they've remembered the issue AFTER it was relevant at the table as opposed to when at the table and it should have been recalled. It is a TV trope for a reason.

And I still don't see how this is an argument in favour of prep. However much prep is done, there will be stuff that happens during play - outcomes of situations, details made up on the spot, whatever - that someone might later care about, but that weren't written down in the course of prep.

<snip>

Sure! But one of the sets of things I note is what previous facts were used to construct the situation. So the fact that Timmy fell in the well near the barn will be noted if the scenario calls for his ghost to appear. If the table mis-remembers and thinks the ghost must be coming from well on the neighbours property because that's where Timmy died, the scenario notes will correct them.

A campaign with continuity is like a house of cards where each card is an outcome from a previous adventure. Later adventures depend on the support of earlier outcomes.

It also helps to keep the table on the same page. I get challenged on a detail maybe 1 in 3 sessions where my memory of the event is contrary to a player's. About 1 in 3 times, I'm wrong. The notes help keep everyone working with the same fiction. Which also means the adventures continue to make sense within their history.

 

[Nagol]

I gave concrete examples of techniques that (i) I think are usable in 5e D&D and (ii) relieve the GM of the need to spend time "planning the adventure". It was intended to reinforce a post by @hawkeyefan which was (if I'm remembering properly) a response to some doubt that such stuff can be done in 5e D&D.

As far as I can tell there's nothing about 5e D&D that makes it, by default, more prep dependent than 4e D&D. When I used kickers to get things going in our 4e Dark Sun game I didn't need to do any prep. I already had some Monster Manuals with me, and so when I needed stat blocks I just opened them up. As far as the actual situation was concerned, well I got that from the players' kickers.

So what I have done is give a concrete example of how someone might run a 5e D&D game without having to prep an adventure. Which is answering the request put out by @GameOgre and @Nagol.

Obviously it is not going to be an exploration-heavy game in Nagol's sense. But if someone is asking how can I have a prep-dependent game that doesn't depend on prep then obviously I've got nothing to give them. But the task specification I was responding to was 5e D&D game, not prep-dependent game.

Agreed! I made similar points way back in an early response to GameOgre's request. The way to have a low-prep 5e game is to change the nature of the game and move it from player discovery to table discovery (play to see what happens).

Personally, I don't use D&D when I want to play that style of game.

 

[Sadras]

To me, this seems to reinforce the points being made by @Hussar and @Ovinomancer: if the reason GMing is hard is because no one wants to adopt play techniques that might make it easier, then those people only have themselves to blame.

You quoted my post so I'd like to point out that I'm refering to the desired playstyle by players not about GMing being hard* and how certain posters are unable to grasp why such players prefer that particular playstyle.

*I fail to see how you got that GMing is hard from my post.

 

[Sadras]

I gave concrete examples of techniques that (i) I think are usable in 5e D&D and (ii) relieve the GM of the need to spend time "planning the adventure". It was intended to reinforce a post by @hawkeyefan which was (if I'm remembering properly) a response to some doubt that such stuff can be done in 5e D&D.

As far as I can tell there's nothing about 5e D&D that makes it, by default, more prep dependent than 4e D&D. When I used kickers to get things going in our 4e Dark Sun game I didn't need to do any prep. I already had some Monster Manuals with me, and so when I needed stat blocks I just opened them up. As far as the actual situation was concerned, well I got that from the players' kickers.

So what I have done is give a concrete example of how someone might run a 5e D&D game without having to prep an adventure. Which is answering the request put out by @GameOgre and @Nagol.

Obviously it is not going to be an exploration-heavy game in Nagol's sense. But if someone is asking how can I have a prep-dependent game that doesn't depend on prep then obviously I've got nothing to give them. But the task specification I was responding to was 5e D&D game, not prep-dependent game.

Bold emphasis mine...I'm sure @GameOgre was not trying to get things going for an adventure.
Your kickers get one out the gate much like a decent backstory could - we are talking about ONGOING prep.
His 2-4 hour preparations are, I imagine, for many, if not every, sessions.

So once the out the gate happens, then what? The kickers you provided do not relieve prep once the game gets going. There will be more locales, more NPCs, deeper plots, foreshadowings, combats, setups/framing, mapping and twists....

 

[Manbearcat]

Just a quick statement.

“Action Adventure (AA)” is not the same gaming subtype of TTRPGing as (I’m just going to call it) “Asymmetric Obstacle Course Marathon (AOCM).” We need a better name for that latter one!

4e, Cortex+, Blades, and Mouse Guard are fantastic for the former. You’ve got low prep, conflict-charged scene-based play, win conditions and loss conditions.

But, while those games each have “extra-scene resource management”, the conceits, different priorities, and the mental overhead assumed by all the participants are all just different than a game of the AOCM archetype.

Two problems that occur are:

1) People don’t know which they actually want! They think they want AA, but they really want AOCM...or vice versa.

2) People think they can just smash the two together and come away with something that satisfies both priorities simultaneously. Unfortunately, in the overwhelming % of instances the priorities and conceits if AA and AOCM are at tension (if not diametric opposition)...and it results in unsatisfying play for one or more participants.

(2) is a big one for me and it may be the primary reason why I have conversations with people on ENWorld (to discuss the machinery of how and why this happens, to develop a working framework of language to discuss this stuff, so we can help each other understand what is happening (mentally to the participants and physically within the play of the game) when we play various games.

 

[lowkey13]

*Deleted by user*

 

[hawkeyefan]

A lot of it was the players seem really comfortable with me doing all the work. When I asked for player input for Dungeon World for example and said"You come from a Elven village? What was its name and what was it like there ....it didn't go over well, that player got slightly hostile as if I was trying to put something on him".

Okay, so this touches on the GM: Player workload topic significantly. For me, the above would be unacceptable in a player. That's not the "right" way to play, but it's they way me and my group play. Other play groups will have a much different expectation.

It's only an issue if doing all the work is a problem for the GM. Many GMs seem to like having all the work to do. If so, that's great! Everyone at the table seems to have the same expectations as far as authorship and prep effort.

But whichever way you lean, this is a choice you've made. If someone wants to take all the game's burden on yourself, cool, more power to them....but I don't think that they still get to complain that GMing has to be hard.

If the GM wants less to do, or if the players want more.....that's where it becomes an issue and needs to be addressed in some way.

I love the OSR games as well. Mostly because for whatever reason I do not have to spend as much time making "encounters". I would love to play Swords and Wizardry or AD&D or even Castles and Crusades but my players have no interest in those. They pretty much just want to play whatever D&D is the latest. Back in 4E it was the same way.

One of the games i'm really wanting to give a go is the Cypher system. I have heard it's very low prep as far as making mechanical encounters and game mechanic prep.

I don't mind imaginative game prep. That is fun to me. Creating fun and unique npc's and monsters,traps and stories ....its the mechanical boring turning that stuff into crunch that gets me down.

So it sounds to me like you're pretty much fine with playing D&D overall, but that occasionally you'd like to play something else. I'm curious....does anyone else in your group ever GM? Would they be willing to?

As for the mechanical prep, I agree 100%. That's why I use the same statblocks with the names filed off for sooooo many NPCs. I've been using the "Archmage" for ever single wizard the PCs encounter for several levels now. I may change up what spells they have on the fly, but what makes them actually different from one another is the non-stat information...their motives and personality and so on.

That's one of the shortcuts I'd really suggest. Statting up 9 NPCs is going to require a good amount of time and effort, but you can easily use the NPC stat blocks from the Monster Manual, Volo's, or any other source.

 

[Nagol]

IME, people generally do know what they want. They may not want to admit it, perhaps they haven't experienced it, but revealed preferences are a heck of a thing.

More often than not, we need to be very, very, very careful when we make this statement. Because it tends to be spoken with either an implied or explicit additional statement, "People don't know what they actually want (because if they did, they would want the same thing I do ... silly people!)."

It's rarely a good thing to say that other people are the ones that don't know what they want- most people, at a minimum, are pretty confident that they know themselves better than someone telling them that they don't really know themselves.



That's one way to look at it. Another way is that TTRPGs tend to not be filled with a completely homogeneous group of players/GMs, and as such, games that offer multiple experiences that are pleasing to the entire group usually are preferred to games that intensely cater to a single preference.

Put another way, a place might make the best hamburger in the world. But if you're not in the mood for burgers, or if you're in a group with some vegans, maybe you choose a different restaurant that satisfies everyone in the group.

If everyone always wants burgers, that's great! But not all tables have that luxury.

As an aside, a career in development taught that people often have a firm opinion about what they want, but are both inarticulate and often haven't given it substantial thought. When I played silly bugger, I'd build what they said they wanted. When I was being helpful, I'd work with them enough to tease out what would actually meet need/desire first. That'd often take longer than the system changes.