Is the DM the most important person at the table

[Fenris-77]

More likley the players thought they had managed to make some great strategic and tactical calls based on the situations presented and were dismayed to discover that the situations weren't designed ahead of time and adjudicated, but were created on the fly in response to their choices.

Which means their decisions still affected the narrative, but the outcomes were much less reliant of their strategic and tactical thinking.

If you're running "let's see what happens" well, or straight improv, then the strategic decision making should still have a big impact of how the situation turns out. If it doesn't affect the outcome as much it's probably a failure on the GMs part. If the situation in the example was hard enough that they felt some real satisfaction in getting through it I find it odd that the they should care whether it was pre-prepped or done on the fly. I think there's some odd expectations at work on their side of the screen

 

[hawkeyefan]

Honestly? I think this is the direction that the producers of D&D have taken to take the workload (or funload ) off the DM's shoulders for the most part. The VAST library of adventures for D&D means that there is pretty much someone for everyone. And, once you do use an AP (I'm running Ghosts of Saltmarsh myself), so much of the yeoman's work is done for you. It does make running a campaign a lot easier.

The massive popularity of the 5e adventure path's, IMO, speak to this. It's never been easier to sit down and run D&D. I mean, good grief, how many hundreds of hours of play could you get out of the 5e AP's right now without a whole lot of work needed from the DM.

Using prepared material is certainly one of the ways to save prep time. However, you generally still have to read through the material, and those big books can take a lot of time to read. I ran Tomb of Annihilation about a year ago as part of my 5E campaign, and I found it difficult for a number of reasons. I've since decided to only run my own material, and I am finding it far more easy.

But, I've also been DMing for a long time. I think for those starting out, using prepared material is a good idea. Although even that won't apply to all (I think @prabe mentioned that he can't make sense of the APs). I think that smaller bite size chunks are far more helpful to newer DMs. A few pages and a map, and not a whole lot more. I think the Adventurer's League stuff may be more in line with what's useful to a new DM, and certainly smaller adventures that can be found on the DMs Guild.

I'm honestly not sure it does, though.

It changes GM prep requirements, no question there, but the effort level is similar*. Instead of working on designing the adventure etc. from scratch, the effort now goes in to tying the PCs' backstories together into something coherent that still fits with the setting.

* - remember, you're used to doing it this way, so what's limited-effort for you might not be to someone else. Conversely, I'm used to designing adventures from scratch and so find it less effort than would someone who's not done much of it.

An analogy might be the use of published modules. For some GMs they cut the prep time down to nearly 0 - just open the book and go. But for others they don't cut the prep time by much at all, they just change the manner of work that needs to be done: instead of mapping and doing up stat blocks while having the backstory already done for you as part of your campaign, you're instead stripping out backstory and editing stuff to make it fit in your campaign while having the mapping and stat blocks already done.

I agree on published modules, as I mentioned above, but I think the smaller the better for newer DMs, generally.

But when it comes to getting PCs' backstories to "fit the setting", I think it's useful to kind of look at it another way. What if the setting fit the PCs' backstories? Sure, you may have a general setting idea such as "we're going to play Dark Sun at the time of the fall of Kalak" as @pemerton used as an example. But what if that's step 1, step 2 is the players make their characters and related concepts (whether backstory, related NPCs, kickers, or some mix of all), and then step 3 is that the DM fleshes out the other details?

This allows the player suggested material.....material they'll likely have more vested interest with....to be prominent. Then the DM can structure the missing pieces around that.

Certainly this will reduce the DM's need for prep at least as much as what the players bring to the table.....maybe some NPCs, factions, locations, or connections to existing ones. It also gives the DM very clear cues about what the players would like for play to be about, which can help when it comes time to mine for ideas for conflict or adventures. Many of the "adventures" in my 5E game largely write themselves because the players have an agenda other than the potential agendas I sprinkle into play.

I agree that this stuff can take time to get comfortable with. But the earlier people begin, the earlier they'll get the hang of it.

There's some other things one can do also, but they don't so much reduce overall work as move a lot of it to a more convenient time - that being, before play ever begins.

My favourite among such things these days is to, long before session 0, have your setting's history (ancient and recent), pantheons, and local geography pretty much nailed down. That way, once you start running the game you can in effect riff off yourself, in full confidence that everything will remain consistent. The best part once play begins: the hard work is already done!

Similar to Tolkein largely nailing down Middle Earth's history etc. before ever putting his authoring pen to paper.

Of course, much depends on how much mileage one intends to get out of a setting. If you're looking at running a 10-month single-linear-party quick-hitter of a campaign you can 99.9% likely get away with tons less setting prep than if you're looking to run a 10-year multi-party behemoth.

Two things on this. I think that using a pre-established setting can indeed cut out a lot of work on the part of the GM. It may also serve as a hook for the players because they may already have an understanding of the setting and possibly strong interest in it, too. This is a big part of why my 5E campaign takes place in the D&D multiverse. It allows us to use any and all published bits, and a lot of the big players are known NPCs that the players already have an interest in.....Eclavdra and Iggwilv and Snurre and Mephistopheles and Graz'zt and Shemeska and so on. All of this gives me a plethora of material that I can mine for ideas, and the same for my players.

Having said that, I think that telling a new GM that they need to construct an entire world with all these details predetermined is one of the things that perpetuates the idea that it's so difficult to GM. There's no reason that this stuff can't be built as it's needed. Start with a town or city and the surrounding region. Add members of the pantheon as needed. And so on.

There's nothing wrong with a Dm who's experienced and has a clear idea of a setting or world that he wants to craft for his group. But I don't think it's good advice for new GMs. It's too daunting. And the chance that they'll do it all so well that they'll actually get to use it all? Seems pretty slim.

 

[lowkey13]

*Deleted by user*

 

[hawkeyefan]

I would probably also add some constraints on these 5 PCs for setting purposes (race and such like), but also to deter the metagame PCs having an armourer, an alchemist guy, a sage guy, a bowyer/fletcher, a gem guy...etc. I do not mind a contact or two, but it isn't necessary to turn every roleplaying opportunity into muchkinism. I'd prefer variety - a possible love interest, a happy drunk, a mischievous street urchin, a newly married couple, an idealistic acolyte, a recent widow, out-of-luck merchant, a pushy flower vendor, a musical duo, a retired falconer, a generous aristocrat, a lascivious innkeeper, a miserable midwife, bookworm-y town guard, an alcoholic sage, a roguish tradesman, a droll linguist, a burly dressmaker...etc

I might have been unclear, maybe - I said I won't have trouble working them in.

I think you're far better off asking them to create mostly the latter types that you mention....characters that they care about in some way, more so than the former, characters who can give them stuff. Nothing wrong with a blacksmith being an acquaintance of the fighter, but their relationship should likely mean more than just "that's the guy I sell weapons to, and who repairs my armor."

You have a few of these types of characters, and then leverage them in an organic way rather than just as weak spots to threaten the PC, and it can be a strong thing in play.

If you can somehow connect mechanics to it as an incentive....using the Inspiration mechanic or something similar...then that may further enhance it.

@Fanaelialae A player generated NPC doesn't have to be the prime mover in a developing situation, just the ticket that gets the player in the door to a new situation. The NPC is a handhold, a piece of info that the PC knows about the gameworld. How and when the player grabs at that handhold, and what the result might be, is still going to be a surprise.

@pemerton - I agree completely about Burning Wheel and the general difficulty of porting over elements form indie games to D&D. I do think it's possible, and useful, but it's work. The hack of BitD flashbacks for 5e is a great example of how it can be done well.

My group is trying something a little different with Inspiration. Essentially, we start with a pool of d20s equal to the number of players. Any player can use one of he d20s at any time to give advantage on a roll. Also, they can spend 2d20 to reroll after the fact. Finally, they can spend a d20 to use a Flashback or similar to establish some element that previously was unknown.

They replenish spent d20s by using their Traits/Ideals/Bonds/Flaws in meaningful ways in play.

The pool of d20s is lifted/tweaked from Modiphius's Star Trek Adventures Momentum, and the Flashback is straight out of Blades.

It's been an enjoyable change that I feel incorporates Inspiration more immediately instead of having it be a forgotten element of the game.

 

[Fenris-77]

My group is trying something a little different with Inspiration. Essentially, we start with a pool of d20s equal to the number of players. Any player can use one of he d20s at any time to give advantage on a roll. Also, they can spend 2d20 to reroll after the fact. Finally, they can spend a d20 to use a Flashback or similar to establish some element that previously was unknown.

They replenish spent d20s by using their Traits/Ideals/Bonds/Flaws in meaningful ways in play.

The pool of d20s is lifted/tweaked from Modiphius's Star Trek Adventures Momentum, and the Flashback is straight out of Blades.

It's been an enjoyable change that I feel incorporates Inspiration more immediately instead of having it be a forgotten element of the game.

That's a cool system. Nice and simple but it does what you want it to. I like that you have a couple of different mechanical incentives tied to the same system. I also really like that it's a group pool, rather than individual pools.

Do you allow a single d20 to be used on a roll that already has advantage, sort of like Elvish accuracy? That would be cool too.

I was also wondering if you'd considered using the d20 pool to offer compels, like FATE does? Your offer a d20 to include a character flaw into a scene, and the player can either accept the point and the compel, or refuse. Not every group is going to enjoy that I'm sure, but it seems like it would fit.

 

[hawkeyefan]

I recall back in the day, when I first started trying to integrate improvisation into my game (as opposed to earlier, when I could sometimes admittedly by a bit of a railroader). My group from then was remarking what a great game I had run, and I confessed to them that it had been all off the cuff. You could literally watch the expressions sour on their faces. The campaign basically crashed and burned after that. I had shown them what was behind the curtain, and it ruined the experience for them.

So nowadays, while I rely heavily on improv, I don't tell them that. It might not ruin the game for all of them, but it might for some. Which, frankly, would be counterproductive. They're certainly aware that I sometimes need to improve, but I don't tell them what or to what extent.

I've seen similar things happen. I also, luckily, had the exact opposite happen. Due to a combination of circumstances, I had to largely run an entire session entirely on the fly, relying only on what had happened in previous sessions to help shape the scenario. It went really well, and one of my players said something like that to me afterward, and asked how much time it had taken to "write that adventure". I told him I made it all up on the fly, and he was even more impressed. This player was also a Gm pretty often, so that likely helped him appreciate it.

I think this reaction you've described is a bit part of what I perceive as the problem. I don't want to "blame" your players, but that kind of reaction is counter productive. "Here's something we liked, we find out how it worked, and we decide we don't like it"....that's kind of hard to get around. Obviously, a big part of this is setting expectations, so if this was a huge departure from what they expect, that explains it a bit, but still.....I don't know anyone who doesn't point out that being able to improvise is a preferred GM skill.

So they just punished a positive gaming experience. I see similar examples offered in discussion.....how players judge GMs harshly for whatever reason. Again, something that serves as a barrier to new GMs.

I play with the same longstanding group, so by now they're very used to my general approach. It's shifted over time, and continues to, but we talk about it, and I make sure that expectations are clear.

More likley the players thought they had managed to make some great strategic and tactical calls based on the situations presented and were dismayed to discover that the situations weren't designed ahead of time and adjudicated, but were created on the fly in response to their choices.

Which means their decisions still affected the narrative, but the outcomes were much less reliant of their strategic and tactical thinking.

I don't think that needs to be the case. I don't know if there's any scenario requiring tactics that only works for pre-planned challenges. I mean, actual tactics are usually deployed throughout an evolving scenario, right? So I don't see how a GM writing a DC ahead of time versus determing the DC on a fly is all that functionally different.

Obviously, my example of the DC is simple. I'm sure you have something else in mind. Why do you think this might be significant? Is it perception alone, or do you think there may be a more meaningful difference?

 

[Nagol]

<snip>

I don't think that needs to be the case. I don't know if there's any scenario requiring tactics that only works for pre-planned challenges. I mean, actual tactics are usually deployed throughout an evolving scenario, right? So I don't see how a GM writing a DC ahead of time versus determing the DC on a fly is all that functionally different.

Obviously, my example of the DC is simple. I'm sure you have something else in mind. Why do you think this might be significant? Is it perception alone, or do you think there may be a more meaningful difference?

I expect it's a combination of perception and an assessment / understanding that the ad hoc nature of the improv allows the GM to adjust the threat level on the fly as opposed to the players managing to "solve" a particularly tough scenario.

So if you feel particularly clever because of certain strategems that actually ended up working and let you bypass what appears to be half or more of the defenders in what you thought was a scenario pitting your party's abilities against a static situation then discover it wasn't, you feel cheated. What appears to have been a success based on brilliant (and typically unorthodox) strategy could just have been handed to you. Note the 'could'. Players can never know for sure, but the suspicion is enough to dull the pleasure.

The narrative remains the same, but the value of the player's input to its success is called into question.

edit

The type of player I'm talking about is like The Tactician in Roblin Laws' Types of Gamers:

The Tactician is probably a military buff, who wants chances to think his way through complex, realistic problems, usually those of the battlefield. He wants the rules, and your interpretation of them, to jibe with reality as he knows it, or at least to portray an internally consistent, logical world in which the quality of his choices is the biggest determining factor in his success or failure. He may view issues of characterization as a distraction. He becomes annoyed when other players do things which fit their PCs' personalities, but are tactically unsound. To satisfy him, you must provide challenging yet logical obstacles for his character to overcome.

 

[hawkeyefan]

That's a cool system. Nice and simple but it does what you want it to. I like that you have a couple of different mechanical incentives tied to the same system. I also really like that it's a group pool, rather than individual pools.

Do you allow a single d20 to be used on a roll that already has advantage, sort of like Elvish accuracy? That would be cool too.

I was also wondering if you'd considered using the d20 pool to offer compels, like FATE does? Your offer a d20 to include a character flaw into a scene, and the player can either accept the point and the compel, or refuse. Not every group is going to enjoy that I'm sure, but it seems like it would fit.

I'm just now (finally) reading Fate. I've been meaning to for some time, and last week someone pointed out that it was PWYW on Drivethru, so I grabbed a copy. I don't know if my group will have any time to actually play Fate soon, but I want to read it and learn the system.

I definitely intend to tweak the Inspiration system we have accordingly, very much like what you're saying.

It works because it promotes teamwork. We've also adopted a different Initiative system, and these two things seem to have really pushed the teamwork angle that I feel was a bit lacking. It's working so far, but I do hope to use the Fate concept of compels to make how they replenish their pool a bit more meaningful.

Oh, and yeah, I've been letting them use a d20 from the pool to add a third die to a roll where the PC already has advantage.

 

[hawkeyefan]

I expect it's a combination of perception and an assessment / understanding that the ad hoc nature of the improv allows the GM to adjust the threat level on the fly as opposed to the players managing to "solve" a particularly tough scenario.

So if you feel particularly clever because of certain strategems that actually ended up working and let you bypass what appears to be half or more of the defenders in what you thought was a scenario pitting your party's abilities against a static situation then discover it wasn't, you feel cheated. What appears to have been a success based on brilliant (and typically unorthodox) strategy could just have been handed to you. Note the 'could'. Players can never know for sure, but the suspicion is enough to dull the pleasure.

The narrative remains the same, but the value of the player's input to its success is called into question.

Okay, thank you for clarifying. That makes sense, and I agree with you.

I think that what you have to do as a GM, if you're employing a more improv style, is to not undermine such a clever action on the part of the PCs.

So that, in a written adventure, the PCs use the clever move to avoid 8 enemies, leaving them with only 4 to fight, but in an improv adventure you maybe don't have hard and fast numbers, but you rule accordingly.

In some ways, I think it allows for even more reward of such clever play. It will depend on how it's handled by the GM.

But I can see how it can be perceived to be "less meaningful" based on player expectations.

 

[Fenris-77]

I'm just now (finally) reading Fate. I've been meaning to for some time, and last week someone pointed out that it was PWYW on Drivethru, so I grabbed a copy. I don't know if my group will have any time to actually play Fate soon, but I want to read it and learn the system.

I definitely intend to tweak the Inspiration system we have accordingly, very much like what you're saying.

It works because it promotes teamwork. We've also adopted a different Initiative system, and these two things seem to have really pushed the teamwork angle that I feel was a bit lacking. It's working so far, but I do hope to use the Fate concept of compels to make how they replenish their pool a bit more meaningful.

Oh, and yeah, I've been letting them use a d20 from the pool to add a third die to a roll where the PC already has advantage.

There are lots of different FATE based games that use the base mechanics in all sorts of ways. I'd recommend browsing through more than just the basic rules if you have the chance. Houses of the Blooded and the Dresden Files are both great games, and very different. If you aren't sure where to get reasonably priced reading material hit me up with a PM.