D&D General Survivor Dungeon Masters -- discussion

[Lyxen]

I don't think it matters at all how much or what the circumstances are. Either the DM is willing to force their preferred outcome onto the game or they're not. Despite it being fairly common practice, I don't think that's the DM's job. The best DMs are neutral referees.

It's not a question of "best" or "worse", it's your preference. And the term "referee" only describes a part of the DM's role in D&D.

You can't neutral if you're fudging the dice to push things for or against the PCs.

And again, it's your preference that the DM be neutral, not an absolute requirement of DMs in general. I have two main DMing mode, Lawful Neutral and Neutral Good, and players appreciate them both, but the second one is globally benevolent towards the PC, because the intention is for everyone, DM included, to tell a really good story.

I don't know about "want" but there are definitely some groups and players who are so used to being railroaded that when given actual, honest choices they're completely at a loss for what to do. They have been trained to look to the DM to see where they're supposed to go instead of making the choice themselves.

And again you are being judgemental here. First, there's nothing wrong about a DM making the story clear so that PCs can follow it, still making significant choices. Nothing. It might not be your preference, but there is nothing against it in any rulebook or any unwritten code of DM conduct. Second, no, these were very experienced players, used to making their own choices. It's just that when dropped in a vast world without a hint about what needs to be done, some players still expect that fate/luck will steer them. And again there's nothing wrong about this.

For decades I have run LARP games for hundreds of players, and we had a choice during the subscription as to whether players preferred to have a relatively guided story, a very open story, or no story at all. And we had excellent players in all categories, just because some players feel that the story is going to be better if in harmony with what has been put in place with the NPCs, rather than having to find their own adventure.

 

[overgeeked]

And the term "referee" only describes a part of the DM's role in D&D.

Yes, I'm aware. But when it comes to handling the rules and how they interact with the PCs, especially in regards to the dice rolls, neutral referee is the best description of best practices.

And again, it's your preference that the DM be neutral, not an absolute requirement of DMs in general. I have two main DMing mode, Lawful Neutral and Neutral Good, and players appreciate them both, but the second one is globally benevolent towards the PC, because the intention is for everyone, DM included, to tell a really good story.

As you're so fond of saying "it's your preference, not an absolute requirement". My focus isn't on producing a "really good story" when I DM, my focus is on emergent play. Whatever story happens because of us playing the game is the story we get. If the players want that story to be epic, then they better get epic. If they want it to be sedate, then they spend time in the inn reminiscing about adventures past. DMs aren't storytellers. It's not their job to remove player agency and spoon feed the players a story.

And again you are being judgemental here.

Yes, because I'm a human with opinions.

First, there's nothing wrong about a DM making the story clear so that PCs can follow it, still making significant choices. Nothing.

Besides removing player agency and therefore removing the only reason to have players at the table, no. Nothing at all.

It might not be your preference, but there is nothing against it in any rulebook or any unwritten code of DM conduct.

Except all the rule books which speak out against it and the slew of DMs who abhor that style of DMing.

Second, no, these were very experienced players, used to making their own choices. It's just that when dropped in a vast world without a hint about what needs to be done, some players still expect that fate/luck will steer them. And again there's nothing wrong about this.

That bolded bit is what's wrong with it. The PCs should have a reason for being there. Either some specific goal or simply to explore (which is also a specific goal). Once they have that goal, whatever it is, they can get moving without being lost.

For decades I have run LARP games for hundreds of players, and we had a choice during the subscription as to whether players preferred to have a relatively guided story, a very open story, or no story at all. And we had excellent players in all categories, just because some players feel that the story is going to be better if in harmony with what has been put in place with the NPCs, rather than having to find their own adventure.

Interesting. I've run LARPs before, too. You do realize that there's no way to accommodate both the "guided story" and "no story" in the same game at the same time, right? If you have a guided story, it effects the "no story" crowd just as much as those who opted in to the story. You're just ignoring the "no story" group's preferences in order to accommodate the "guided story" group. Unless you're literally segregating the groups and running multiple games with multiple "stories".

 

[Gradine]

Yeah... every table (and every player) is looking for different things from D&D. If the table walks away with everyone having had a great time, then the DM did their job well.

The how and the why is personal preference. No need to badwrongfun anybody about it.

 

[Lyxen]

Yes, I'm aware. But when it comes to handling the rules and how they interact with the PCs, especially in regards to the dice rolls, neutral referee is the best description of best practices.

Can you tell me where these best practices are described ? Because I can't find anything like this in the D&D books.

As you're so fond of saying "it's your preference, not an absolute requirement". My focus isn't on producing a "really good story" when I DM, my focus is on emergent play.

And that's fine, but it's only one way to play. There are others, which are just as fine.

Whatever story happens because of us playing the game is the story we get. If the players want that story to be epic, then they better get epic. If they want it to be sedate, then they spend time in the inn reminiscing about adventures past. DMs aren't storytellers.

The PH disagrees: "One player, however, takes on the role of the Dungeon Master (DM), the game’s lead storyteller and referee." And I'm sure I could find more quotes in the DMG.

It's not their job to remove player agency and spoon feed the players a story.

Again, it depends on the preferences of the table overall.

Yes, because I'm a human with opinions.

Which is fine, I've got mine too.

Besides removing player agency and therefore removing the only reason to have players at the table, no. Nothing at all.

Player agency is a stupid concept, it does not exist when the whole world is managed by the DM. Only the collaboration between all the people around the table results in a game.

Except all the rule books which speak out against it and the slew of DMs who abhor that style of DMing.

Some DMs detest strong railroading, but not everyone likes sandboxing either, because it can just fall flat. Don't project your personal feelings on the whole of the community. Lots of published adventure have some level of raildroading, and some have some level of sandboxing, but most are mixed anyway, and they are quite popular, at least some of them.

That bolded bit is what's wrong with it. The PCs should have a reason for being there. Either some specific goal or simply to explore (which is also a specific goal). Once they have that goal, whatever it is, they can get moving without being lost.

Interesting. I've run LARPs before, too. You do realize that there's no way to accommodate both the "guided story" and "no story" in the same game at the same time, right?

My experience of running LARPS for up to 250 people at the same time, at least 3-4 times per year for more than 30 years totally shows that you are wrong in this. I have done it many, many times. That being said, these were mostly French LARPs, and the LARPing culture is very country specific.

But just to give you an idea, we evolved a large number of concepts, and in particular that of the ZORP, which means probable zone of encounter for NPCs, which are usually areas where multiple NPCs live, can offer roleplay or even the start of adventures/quest, or just the opportunity to experience the ambiance. Some players will be happy to go from one to the other, possibly picking errands at one place (or not), or just enjoying the play there (or hiring themselves as mercenaries for other groups, etc.). Other players will have a quest that takes them to specific locations, in order or not, and that of course can depend on other encounters and how they handle them.

Having flexible NPCs in each ZORP allows us to tailor the experience to the players taste, all in the same LARP.

If you have a guided story, it effects the "no story" crowd just as much as those who opted in to the story. You're just ignoring the "no story" group's preferences in order to accommodate the "guided story" group. Unless you're literally segregating the groups and running multiple games with multiple "stories".

There is no segregation at all, everyone plays at the same time. Sometimes we have a strong story arc for the overall game, but everyone does not need to be concerned. Sometimes we have smaller arcs, or very local ones, etc. We have names (in French) for all these structures, pyramidal, multi-stream, double-torus, etc. and we can mix and match.

 

[Gradine]

Except all the rule books which speak out against it and the slew of DMs who abhor that style of DMing.

See... DM advice is a lot like parenting advice. No matter how well you think you're doing, no matter how many voices you can find declaring it the One True Way, you will find others who abhor your own style.

The stakes are admittedly much lower, but all the same; for every paean, every rule, every piece of advice, you will find endless voices of support along with endless voices calling you a monster for even considering it.

Looking to the internet for parenting advice was an extremely traumatic experience for me, is what I'm saying.

I can say for certain that nobody I've ever played with would return to second season of yours, including myself. Which is fine... you're DMing your players, not mine.

 

[Lyxen]

See... DM advice is a lot like parenting advice. No matter how well you think you're doing, no matter how many voices you can find declaring it the One True Way, you will find others who abhor your own style.

The stakes are admittedly much lower, but all the same; for every paean, every rule, every piece of advice, you will find endless voices of support along with endless voices calling you a monster for even considering it.

Looking to the internet for parenting advice was an extremely traumatic experience for me, is what I'm saying.

God, thinking in retrospect, I'm really happy that my parenting days came before the internet became what it becomes today and that instinct guide me more than research.

And you're right about DMing as well, I completely agree.

 

[Maxperson]

I mentioned this in the other thread, but this kind of dming is increasingly distasteful to me. I think especially non-dnd games helped me realize this. The premise here is that it is the job of the dm to curate an experience for the players and create the illusion of a deep, complicated world. To this end the dm fudges die rolls to make encounters more dramatic, pretends that their improvisation is actually something written down in their notes (or in the module), and basically guides players along a more or less linear path (which, to my mind, is a kind of soft railroading).

This seems to be kind of the default style of dnd? And as someone who came up in the 2e era, it has long roots. But I find it exhausting and unfun to dm in this way. It makes the dm an entertainer rather than just another player at the table.

I really like Matt Colville and his videos. He and I have very similar styles of DMing, so I get a lot out of his videos. That said, the videos you posted are a a point where I very much disagree with him. I don't try to guide the players or fool them into going directions. I just present some options and react to their choices, even if it's not one of the options.

 

[Charlaquin]

To this end the dm fudges die rolls to make encounters more dramatic, pretends that their improvisation is actually something written down in their notes (or in the module), and basically guides players along a more or less linear path (which, to my mind, is a kind of soft railroading).

I’m not seeing how these two things can both be describing them same style. If the DM is improvising and merely pretending whatever they improvised was part of a plan, how can they also be guiding the players down a (mostly) linear path? Wouldn’t any linearity the path has be illusory at best, since despite the DM’s pretenses otherwise they are in fact improvising it as they go?

 

[Charlaquin]

I made the decision, long ago, to roll out in the open.

It's helped with my DMing (and adventure design) to not have to even think about fudging.

And Frankly, I've played with plenty of GMs who fudged rolls - I have yet to play with one who's as good about hiding it as they think they are - it's A LOT more obvious than most GMs think! That lessens the play experience for me.

I basically assume that if a DM is hiding their rolls, they’re fudging them at least some of the time. Maybe not much, maybe not often, but if the dice aren’t being rolled in the open, I’ll always be suspicious of those clutch crits when the party has the upper hand, or those narrow misses when we’re close to a TPK. Why else would you feel the need to hide the rolls, unless to reserve the option for yourself to fudge something “just in case”?

That’s why I roll in the open. It eliminates any suspicion the players might have that I could be fudging, as well as any temptation I might have to fudge.

 

[Lyxen]

Why else would you feel the need to hide the rolls, unless to reserve the option for yourself to fudge something “just in case”?

Because it's comfortable to be sitting behind one's screen where all your maps and details are hidden, and it's much more annoying to get up every time and throw them on the other side of the screen and recover them ? And because your players trust you and don't suspect you of working against their fun ?

Frankly, ever since 3e, the level of distrust from the players towards their DM has skyrocketed, and can be seen all over the forums. KotDT made lots of fun about this, not without reason as almost everyone around the table is sort of shifty, in particular due to the severely competitive breed of game that they are playing.

But in general, the players are not playing against the DM, who is just helping them have incredible adventures. Why that level of distrust ?