D&D General The Power of Creation

[bloodtide]

As part of a DMs Absolute Power in D&D is that they can create anything on a whim. For me the Power lets a DM create anything, anywhere, anytime. Though some players disagree. Such as today's game. My new 5E Spelljammer game, with people I'm not friends with, but we are all gamers. So two players decided to be hostile and try an nitpick my creation of everything. As I do a fair amount of Improv and I have more game/rule/skill/social mastery then both of them combined, they mostly annoying. And, of course, they did not slow down the game play at all as I keep things moving, and have my Hard Fun Three Second Rule(when action starts you have three seconds to state your characters action: otherwise your character is a confused target for that round).

This is not the first time hostile players complained about the DMs creation powers. Lots of players demand some sort of "limit" to the DMs power.....but what that limit is, is fuzzy at best. Often it just comes down to "whatever the player does not like". So what are players limits? I'd hope to get a good list of limits to better understand the hostile players.


So, most players agree a DM can create anything before a game and write it down. I think the only complaint here is if the DM makes something the player thinks "does not belong" in the game. But as D&D has time/space magic, it's beyond silly for a player to make that complain anyway.

Most players seem to be fine with a DM creating things in game, up until the first round of combat. Then many players feel anything encountered in combat can't be changed or altered or added too. The typical complaint here is the Bad DM one: "it's wrong for a DM to suddenly say a foe is immune to fire after the Pc casts a fire spell on them." And I agree that DM is a bad DM, but still say the DM can create things at any time.

This is where there is a big player stumble over the odd player demand of "the DM must make a stat block, written down and stored in a safe place, for any encountered creature before combat, and once combat starts it can never be changed!" This demand assumes DMs make detailed stat blocks.

So what about Improv DMs. I don't think I'm the only DM that does Freeform Improv(but then, maybe I am). When the characters turn down an alley, I will often just on the spot create and encounter "two orcs in hide armor, each has a spiked club" without making any sort of Official Full Stat Block. When combat starts, I just toss out numbers as needed. Maybe half the time I use some rules mastery to toss out a "by the rules" number, the rest of the time I don't.


Also, when Imporving without a stat black, the foe has no equipment. In that "must be written down" way some players demand. And some players would complain, if on round three, the DM "suddenly" just "gave" the orc a potion of healing to drink. Though by all rights, the orc DID always have the potion, even if the DM did not write it down. AND, even IF it was written down: it's not like the players are given the full stat block and possessions of every foe.


And then we have the DMs game/rule/skill mastery. So, as a DM, a week before the game I know Lord Dark might need a quick get away.....so 'pop' I write down a potion of flying under his possessions. Two weeks later Lord Dark drinks the potion, jumps off a cliff, and flies away from the PCs. The players complain, but I just show them my date stamped Lord Dark sheet with the potion of flying listed weeks ago. And even if it was not listed way back then, it could still be added up the second before the encounter starts, right?

Not that it can really matters as it can't be proven anyway.

So, what says you?

 

[Krachek]

I have already say for joking that Wotc should provide a secure site where the DM can post his prep notes in case of contest by the players!

some players need to be challenged during the session. And for them a challenge need a defined enemy where their skills will really matter during the fight.
There is also plot or mystery solver player that can’t afford that the Dm is building the plot as the story go. right from the start the Dm must have lock the plot elements otherwise it won’t worth to try to solve it.

it is a matter of challenge and the need to be rewarded for performing. It is a legitimate need so it can’t be simply toss away.
The challenge is to fit those needs with a Dm who like to improvise.

 

[LordEntrails]

Hubris.

I think your trouble started when you thought as DM you had absolute power. It only got worse when you thought it mattered that you had more mastery in anything. It was doomed when you allowed the game to turn into a contest of DM vs players.

Play the game the way you want to. Don't expect everyone else to have the same expectations as you.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

As part of a DMs Absolute Power in D&D is that they can create anything on a whim. For me the Power lets a DM create anything, anywhere, anytime. Though some players disagree. Such as today's game. My new 5E Spelljammer game, with people I'm not friends with, but we are all gamers. So two players decided to be hostile and try an nitpick my creation of everything. As I do a fair amount of Improv and I have more game/rule/skill/social mastery then both of them combined, they mostly annoying. And, of course, they did not slow down the game play at all as I keep things moving, and have my Hard Fun Three Second Rule(when action starts you have three seconds to state your characters action: otherwise your character is a confused target for that round).

To be honest, without hearing it from an unbiased source, I cannot really comment on this. Perhaps they are being perniciously bad. Perhaps your biases are blinding you to valid criticisms. I literally cannot say either way, though I will say having a "Hard Fun Three Second Rule" does not actually sound very fun to me, and in fact sounds like a great way to ruin a game experience for me pretty thoroughly. I like to think carefully about my choices, so if I'm given a hard limit of three seconds to decide, yeah, that's....going to drive me away.

This is not the first time hostile players complained about the DMs creation powers. Lots of players demand some sort of "limit" to the DMs power.....but what that limit is, is fuzzy at best. Often it just comes down to "whatever the player does not like". So what are players limits? I'd hope to get a good list of limits to better understand the hostile players.

I think, at the very start, you should try to stop thinking of them as hostile players, because that will keep you in a defensive mindset: you are structuring this as needing to defend yourself against being attacked by players who are being rude, petty, insulting, petulant, etc. Instead, I recommend you think of it as, "How can I work with my players to address their concerns?" This emphasizes that the solution is one of building consensus, not of browbeating unruly players until they meekly accept whatever you decide to do without question or complaint agree to your terms.

So, most players agree a DM can create anything before a game and write it down. I think the only complaint here is if the DM makes something the player thinks "does not belong" in the game. But as D&D has time/space magic, it's beyond silly for a player to make that complain anyway.

Howso? Consistency of theme and tone are extremely important in essentially all creative media. Throwing in a random comic relief raygun-toting alien into a grim and gritty Game of Thrones-style low-fantasy game, for example, is going to be jarring and weird, and will likely get major criticism from players who were really on board for a grim and gritty GoT-style low-fantasy game.

That, for me, is absolutely an important limitation. DMs need to provide a consistent theme and tone, or they need to build up to and justify shifts in those things so that it feels warranted and reasonable. Otherwise, the DM is effectively asking me to agree to whatever possible game they might like running, regardless of my tastes or interests, and I'm just...not here for that.

Most players seem to be fine with a DM creating things in game, up until the first round of combat. Then many players feel anything encountered in combat can't be changed or altered or added too. The typical complaint here is the Bad DM one: "it's wrong for a DM to suddenly say a foe is immune to fire after the Pc casts a fire spell on them." And I agree that DM is a bad DM, but still say the DM can create things at any time.

This is where there is a big player stumble over the odd player demand of "the DM must make a stat block, written down and stored in a safe place, for any encountered creature before combat, and once combat starts it can never be changed!" This demand assumes DMs make detailed stat blocks.

I run Dungeon World, which doesn't have "detailed" statblocks. It still has some kind of statblock, though. And I expect myself to adhere to those rules. I refuse to accept that DMs not only can but should dynamically alter statblocks on the fly without justification. I have doubly emphasized "without justification" for a reason, it is EXTREMELY important. I am not opposed to changing a statblock. I am opposed to changing a statblock arbitrarily, without permitting the players to learn from the change. One of the most common cited examples of statblock modification is to extend a fight that has ended too early, or to "fix" a fight that was not meant to be too strong but ended up being so. But there is a far superior way to address these things, while still making changes: make the change something the player characters can potentially learn about and respond to.

So what about Improv DMs. I don't think I'm the only DM that does Freeform Improv(but then, maybe I am). When the characters turn down an alley, I will often just on the spot create and encounter "two orcs in hide armor, each has a spiked club" without making any sort of Official Full Stat Block. When combat starts, I just toss out numbers as needed. Maybe half the time I use some rules mastery to toss out a "by the rules" number, the rest of the time I don't.

Then I would find that highly unsatisfying. It means that my tactics within the combat are irrelevant, because the numbers will be whatever you think is interesting. And it means my strategies outside combat (e.g. the resources I have invested, the care I have put into building my character, what things I have chosen to conserve vs. expend, etc.) are irrelevant. I neither learn nor grow by fighting these things; I neither succeed nor fail, unless it is by your choice. That would bother me a lot, and make me question why I'm even playing. If the world has no proverbial "substance" to it, then I'm just dancing to the DM's tune. That's not very interesting to me.

I don't expect you to have statblocks prepared for every possible enemy. I wing a variety of things myself as DM. That's what monster manuals and quick-generation tools are for: to make it easy to quickly generate a creature that actually has statistics. With the Internet, and searchable databases, and automated monster/encounter generators, etc., etc., it is now easier than ever to be an "improv" DM who uses actual monsters, as opposed to "I just make numbers up every round I need them."

Also, when Imporving without a stat black, the foe has no equipment. In that "must be written down" way some players demand. And some players would complain, if on round three, the DM "suddenly" just "gave" the orc a potion of healing to drink. Though by all rights, the orc DID always have the potion, even if the DM did not write it down. AND, even IF it was written down: it's not like the players are given the full stat block and possessions of every foe.

I absolutely would complain about this, yes. You have the power to justify these things. Don't just claim they're there. Give your players enough respect to actually explain why you're altering the situation, and the possibility (perhaps in the future) of preventing such changes, or exploiting them for their own benefit.

And then we have the DMs game/rule/skill mastery. So, as a DM, a week before the game I know Lord Dark might need a quick get away.....so 'pop' I write down a potion of flying under his possessions. Two weeks later Lord Dark drinks the potion, jumps off a cliff, and flies away from the PCs. The players complain, but I just show them my date stamped Lord Dark sheet with the potion of flying listed weeks ago. And even if it was not listed way back then, it could still be added up the second before the encounter starts, right?

Not that it can really matters as it can't be proven anyway.

So, what says you?

It sounds to me like you have an extremely cavalier attitude about running a world, such that you feel you are entitled to rewrite anything and everything--the very reality itself--should it please you. I don't find that a very interesting game concept to play with. In fact, it sounds to me like something very frustrating, where creatures we fight are quantum blobs of "whatever the DM feels like today" and encounters succeed or fail not because of anything the players do, but because you have decided what the "interesting" outcomes will be and ensure they happen by hook or by crook.

So...yeah I can't say I blame your so-called "hostile" players for criticizing this. You've demonstrated you don't really care about the world being something that exists, and you seem to have very little respect for your players, seeing them as an audience for the world you have "absolute" control over, rather than as co-participants in a shared play space where everyone's voice matters (even if the DM's voice is usually final.)

 

[Yora]

I find it quite unsatisfying when the GM adds new encounters because he wants to change the pacing, makes monsters stronger because he thinks fights are too easy, or makes monsters weakers to prevent the players from losing a fight. And that's my GM opinion.

Player actuons and choices matter more when they can be good choices that make things easier, or bad choices that make things harder or can fail. If the choices and tactics of the players don't affect what happens in the game, then the whole exercise seems quite pointless.

What it comes down to is whether the players feel that their choices make a difference and that things don't change to adjust to their performance. And the key to this is to stay consistent with enemies and NPCs. If yhings go reallymwell, let the players have that. If things go really bad, let the players fail. Things that are the same should stay the same. If there are differences between them, then the differences should have been applied from the start and become apparent later, regardless of how the players have been performing at that point.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

I find it quite unsatisfying when the GM adds new encounters because he wants to change the pacing, makes monsters stronger because he thinks fights are too easy, or makes monsters weakers to prevent the players from losing a fight. And that's my GM opinion.

Player actuons and choices matter more when they can be good choices that make things easier, or bad choices that make things harder or can fail. If the choices and tactics of the players don't affect what happens in the game, then the whole exercise seems quite pointless.

What it comes down to is whether the players feel that their choices make a difference and that things don't change to adjust to their performance. And the key to this is to stay consistent with enemies and NPCs. If yhings go reallymwell, let the players have that. If things go really bad, let the players fail. Things that are the same should stay the same. If there are differences between them, then the differences should have been applied from the start and become apparent later, regardless of how the players have been performing at that point.

Completely agreed, though I'd like to add a little nuance.

To begin with, I have in fact actually let my players have a stupidly easy win because they simply outsmarted me. I've told this story a few times- around here. Long story short, I made what was intended to be an epic pitched battle against a molten obsidian golem formed from mystical blood-obsidian sand fused with the life-force of captured victims and the parts from the soul-bound assassin spiderbots attacking the wicked druids' shrine; the players quite cleverly attracted its attention and then...withdrew past the waterlogged spike trap they'd avoided in the hallway approaching this thing. The molten obsidian solidified due to contact with the water, and the players were able to just break it because obsidian is a crappy building material. And my players, despite the overt anticlimax, were happy. Because they knew that they'd won a victory, not just against the opposition, but in terms of actually being too clever for me. In the moment it was kind of disappointing for me, but in the long run, I'm now actually pretty proud of how I handled that--one of my first really big "oh crap" moments as a DM.

Now, for the nuance: I certainly agree that things shouldn't adapt on the fly to match the party, as that will bleed away all the tension if it's discovered. But there is a way to (kind of, sort of) have your cake and eat it too. Specifically, if the party has several different concerns all active at the same time, it becomes possible to allow Villain B to fester and get worse because you spent time focusing on Villain A, or vice-versa. In this situation, choice does still matter, but it's still possible to have threats which grow at the same time as the PCs growing.

I try to do this very judiciously, however. I first and foremost have taken great pains to let my players know that this is NOT meant to screw them over for choosing A instead of B; I won't ever punish them simply for making the choice of what they want to deal with right away and what they think can wait a bit. Doing so would teach them that taking risks is a fool's errand, and I'd rather not do that. I do, however, take into account things like "this hasn't been looked into in a really long time!" or "you've kinda been sitting on that juicy intel for over a year IRL now..."

In other words, the world evolves in response to what the players do, and neglecting one area to hyper-focus on some other area results in that first area, well, getting more difficult to deal with, but not necessarily "stronger" in the strict sense. The things become more deeply entrenched. They put out more feelers, build up better networks, figure out how to fix past weaknesses. Let me give some concrete examples.

So, in Jewel of the Desert, there are four major Fronts (DW term for opposition forces against the PCs--from the idea of "fighting on multiple fronts"): the Shadow Druids (evil druids who revere death and decay), the Zil al-Ghurab (the "Raven-Shadow" assassin-cult), the Cult of the Burning Eye (Lovecraftian-type cultists with a penchant for blood rages), and a black dragon that's trying to quietly take over the city via gang activity (and probably other stuff--the party hasn't figured out who the black dragon is yet.) During some early adventures, the party slapped down the Shadow Druids HARD, I mean HARD, so that faction has taken a LONG time to recover its strength (as in, literal years of play.) They also had several skirmishes with the Raven-Shadows and dealt with some Burning Eye activity--but by and large, other than hearing about the black dragon problem, the party didn't really do much to investigate.

That state of affairs remained the case, adventure after adventure, and that has allowed the black dragon's gang to become bolder, to do more, to pressure more people into accepting underhanded jobs or consuming strange alchemical concoctions. This is finally starting to bubble up such that the party is finding it hard to ignore. I've kept the direct, clear consequences relatively light, but dropped insidious hints, had NPC allies (and potential-allies-if-saved types) be affected by some of the stuff going on, etc. The black dragon isn't ready to make the final move, not yet, but the plan is much further advanced than it would have been if the party had done more things to interfere. Again, I do not do this to screw with them, but rather to give an additional reasonable justification for why threats ratchet up a bit over time.

 

[dave2008]

@bloodtide , I'm going to take a slightly different stance than some of the others here. As a DM I improvise quite a bit. And I feel I have every right too. My ultimate goal is for everyone to have a good time, not adhere slavishly to a game book.

However, players do have a certain expectation that your playing "by the rules." Most of our encounters are random and not planned ahead of time. I don't necessarily have stats for this or that at my finger tips. Instead, I have my DMG cheat-sheet which allows me to adjudicate everything under the expectations of the game: by-the-book. I am making it up, but it is based in the rules. Similarly, if my group encounters an Orc hunting party and I just have the "orc" statblock, well I am going to modify it on the fly for what makes sense for the world around them (longbow and knives instead of javelin, etc.). But I follow the rules of the game when I do.

This issue I see in your post is that you seem to think the game is your world. That is certainly an approach some DMs take, but I would suggest you try to look at it as the group's world. Then you might understand the player's frustration a bit.

 

[Scott Christian]

I think some of the other commentors in here nailed it on the head. You need to not look at them as hostile players.

But, for another take, a lot of this comes down to trust in the DM and DM prep. In my opinion, if you are prepped, you don't need to make a lot of things up. It's all there - and the players will notice it is there.

 

[Oofta]

As part of a DMs Absolute Power in D&D is that they can create anything on a whim. For me the Power lets a DM create anything, anywhere, anytime.

With great power comes great responsibility.

Though some players disagree. Such as today's game. My new 5E Spelljammer game, with people I'm not friends with, but we are all gamers. So two players decided to be hostile and try an nitpick my creation of everything. As I do a fair amount of Improv and I have more game/rule/skill/social mastery then both of them combined, they mostly annoying. And, of course, they did not slow down the game play at all as I keep things moving, and have my Hard Fun Three Second Rule(when action starts you have three seconds to state your characters action: otherwise your character is a confused target for that round).

This is not the first time hostile players complained about the DMs creation powers. Lots of players demand some sort of "limit" to the DMs power.....but what that limit is, is fuzzy at best. Often it just comes down to "whatever the player does not like". So what are players limits? I'd hope to get a good list of limits to better understand the hostile players.


So, most players agree a DM can create anything before a game and write it down. I think the only complaint here is if the DM makes something the player thinks "does not belong" in the game. But as D&D has time/space magic, it's beyond silly for a player to make that complain anyway.

Most players seem to be fine with a DM creating things in game, up until the first round of combat. Then many players feel anything encountered in combat can't be changed or altered or added too. The typical complaint here is the Bad DM one: "it's wrong for a DM to suddenly say a foe is immune to fire after the Pc casts a fire spell on them." And I agree that DM is a bad DM, but still say the DM can create things at any time.

This is where there is a big player stumble over the odd player demand of "the DM must make a stat block, written down and stored in a safe place, for any encountered creature before combat, and once combat starts it can never be changed!" This demand assumes DMs make detailed stat blocks.

What I do is come up with combat encounters that I think would be likely. For example that there will be (for my new game with low level PCs) a potential encounter with darklings and a darkling elder. I noted that 2 darklings would be a medium encounter, 3 would make it hard and there would only ever be 1 elder. I had ideas on how I would probably use the darklings, what their motivation and goals were (kidnap someone), but that's it. If the kidnap scenario didn't fit the flow of the game, I may well have thrown them in somewhere else.

I usually sketch out at least a couple of extra combat scenarios just based on what would likely be encountered. But other than a sentence or two? Just deciding how many of what appears? I don't do a lot of prep for that aspect of the games. I do prep people, factions, motivations, keep track of established lore. Those can be created on the fly as well, which is why I keep a list of names handy and pause while I look at my "notes".

So what about Improv DMs. I don't think I'm the only DM that does Freeform Improv(but then, maybe I am). When the characters turn down an alley, I will often just on the spot create and encounter "two orcs in hide armor, each has a spiked club" without making any sort of Official Full Stat Block. When combat starts, I just toss out numbers as needed. Maybe half the time I use some rules mastery to toss out a "by the rules" number, the rest of the time I don't.


Also, when Imporving without a stat black, the foe has no equipment. In that "must be written down" way some players demand. And some players would complain, if on round three, the DM "suddenly" just "gave" the orc a potion of healing to drink. Though by all rights, the orc DID always have the potion, even if the DM did not write it down. AND, even IF it was written down: it's not like the players are given the full stat block and possessions of every foe.

So that's where we differ. I will occasionally tweak monsters on the fly, but usually I will have done it ahead of time. If I do make adjustments, they will normally be minor. If I know orc thugs are a potential threat they will be one of my extra encounters.

And then we have the DMs game/rule/skill mastery. So, as a DM, a week before the game I know Lord Dark might need a quick get away.....so 'pop' I write down a potion of flying under his possessions. Two weeks later Lord Dark drinks the potion, jumps off a cliff, and flies away from the PCs. The players complain, but I just show them my date stamped Lord Dark sheet with the potion of flying listed weeks ago. And even if it was not listed way back then, it could still be added up the second before the encounter starts, right?

Not that it can really matters as it can't be proven anyway.

So, what says you?

We'd have to know more detail about specific issues. Sometimes a DM and players just aren't a good match. My style is to give the illusion that I'm not improvising left and right. In addition, you need to be careful to not let "improv" turn into "I want the story to work like this".

 

[Stormonu]

The DM can't think of everything up front, they are people too.

I don't have a problem with tweaking things in game, so long as it isn't malicious towards the party or invalidates what should have been a viable action on the player's part.

Also, I find its relatively bad to tell players if you modified something. It if caused them grief, they'll blame you for their woes and if it benefitted them they'll complain you're making it too easy. So, I generally just do my thing and the players are no wiser that I tweaked something to create a "better" experience.