D&D General How much control do DMs need?

[JAMUMU]

I came up in the 80s and 90s with the sort of control-freak GMs and DMs you write horror stories about, and as part of a cohort of players who had learned psychological warfare to play these guys games and have fun. So my personal DMing style was a reaction against that and always leaned away from the autocratic and towards fun collaborationism. Later developments in the game-o-sphere gave me the tools and 'permissions' to explore this further.

 

[Oofta]

Totally this. "Game master" is so often a mashup of referee, judge, plot guardian, filler of gaps, antagonist, and portrayer of the rest of the world, roles that are inherently in conflct, and often in conflict with the very idea of a group activity meant to be fun. PbtA games largely remove the first three responsibilities from the Master of Ceremonies (as Apocalypse World calls it, and I'd argue that still isn't a great name for the job). This allows the MC to really push antagonism when appropriate, and portray the world with all of its antagonists, but also neutral parties and allies. Torchbearer is also pretty clear about that too, although its mechanics are rather baroque in comparison. Blades in the Dark comes close but does have a few chinks, in my limited experience. And then there's Ironsworn, which has full support for GMless play out of the proverbial box. I'm particularly itching to give that game a try sometime. But next up for my group is Stonetop, which is in the PbtA family of games. (It looks to have a Ranger that isn't a heartbreaker so I'm pretty eager to see if it lives up to the promise.)

I've tried cooperative games (one shots) in the past and they just don't work for me. I DM more than I play most of the time and the experience is very different for me depending on which side of the DM screen I am and that's part of the appeal.

There is no "inherent" conflict. When I DM I'm trying to put together a world and situations that are fun for both me and my players. While there are bad DMs (and players), and I've had a few, those bad DMs are no longer my DM. Or anyone else's DM for that matter. Having a cooperative game doesn't solve the issue of bad actors in a game, it just shifts it.

Different games will work for different people but there is no one "better for everyone". Viva le difference.

 

[loverdrive]

Gaps are inevitable when your play space is unbounded, but your rules non-trivial. You can cover them with a GM to handle them in situ, or by limiting the play space to areas where the gaps do not matter.

I would disagree. In, say, Fate, especially if you use a bunch of extras and supplemental books, the rules are far from trivial, while having no gaps to be bridged.

Yeah, the rules require a human being to come up with compels and judge on aspect applicability, but it's not like there's a shortage of humans at the table.

But next up for my group is Stonetop, which is in the PbtA family of games. (It looks to have a Ranger that isn't a heartbreaker so I'm pretty eager to see if it lives up to the promise.)

Stonetop is awesome! I hope you'll enjoy it.

 

[Oofta]

I would disagree. In, say, Fate, especially if you use a bunch of extras and supplemental books, the rules are far from trivial, while having no gaps to be bridged.

Yeah, the rules require a human being to come up with compels and judge on aspect applicability, but it's not like there's a shortage of humans at the table.


Stonetop is awesome! I hope you'll enjoy it.

No set of rules could cover everything we do in D&D while also being comprehensive. There may be systems for adjudicating things not explicitly covered under the rules but there will always be a "Can I swing from the chandelier" question now and then.

Whether the decision of whether said light fixture will support the character's weight while also allowing them to achieve their stated goal is left up to an individual or a committee, it's going to be something the rules don't cover. You're just shifting the goalposts of who has the final authority, a game mechanism (and ultimately the authors of that mechanism), an individual, or group consensus.

Where the authority lies is a preference.

 

[payn]

I guess what I'm wondering is whether the D&D model of the omniscient narrator DM is a feature or a flaw. Is it a historical accident that the game evolved as it did, just because of the personalities involved and their origins in the wargaming world? Could a similar game but with cooperative narration have evolved and colonized our brains so that in an alternate universe we see that as the default paradigm, and see D&D-style games as the indie outliers?

This is tying back into my musings elsewhere on why D&D-style games are so dominant in the RPG sphere. Are they naturally more populist, or did they just get there first?

I think the D&D dominance is a whole myriad of factors. It doesnt really help to pull at single threads to try and solve it. These topics often go hammerheads at each other and it is very unfortunate. I understand your inquiry, but believe its only going to lead to adversarial discussion as has been stated.

 

[pogre]

Depending on the group.

It can work depending on player preference.

There's no one true way.

This really depends upon what you're trying to do.

The obvious answer here--"it depends"--is arguably not the most-helpful one.

It depends on the players and the level of control.

I'll add my voice to the chorus. I'll also agree with many that high DM power is built into the D&D rules. Doesn't mean you cannot expand the framework, just that it seems to be the original intent.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

No set of rules could cover everything we do in D&D while also being comprehensive. There may be systems for adjudicating things not explicitly covered under the rules but there will always be a "Can I swing from the chandelier" question now and then.

Whether the decision of whether said light fixture will support the character's weight while also allowing them to achieve their stated goal is left up to an individual or a committee, it's going to be something the rules don't cover. You're just shifting the goalposts of who has the final authority, a game mechanism (and ultimately the authors of that mechanism), an individual, or group consensus.

Where the authority lies is a preference.

Dungeon World: I swing from the lantern and land on the ogre's back! OK, roll 2d6... I mean, that's the answer to EVERYTHING basically, there's no point at which the rules 'run out', there's basically one mechanical approach to ALL the action in the game. I mean, granted, there ARE decisions to be made in DW about what happens next, but "how do I handle X" is never a question, the system is, in this sense, 'complete'.

 

[niklinna]

Dungeon World: I swing from the lantern and land on the ogre's back! OK, roll 2d6... I mean, that's the answer to EVERYTHING basically, there's no point at which the rules 'run out', there's basically one mechanical approach to ALL the action in the game. I mean, granted, there ARE decisions to be made in DW about what happens next, but "how do I handle X" is never a question, the system is, in this sense, 'complete'.

An interesting contrast is Torchbearer's Good Idea. If the GM thinks that somebody's proposed action is spot on and just the right thing to do, you don't roll a test and you don't tick the grind (and the players gain no additional advantage, not even XP, other than overcoming the immediate obstacle).

 

[pemerton]

No set of rules could cover everything we do in D&D while also being comprehensive.

This just isn't true. @AbdulAlhazred mentioned Dungeon World. @niklinna mentioned Torchbearer, and I think BW is pretty close to complete also. @loverdrive mentioned Fate. A game that some people think of as being in the Fate-o-sphere, though personally I think it's interestingly different, is Marvel Heroic RP. I've found that a fantasy adaption of it - Cortex + Heroic Fantasy - is comprehensive. Another system that could be mentioned here is HeroWars/Quest.

Etc.

 

[TaranTheWanderer]

I guess what I'm wondering is whether the D&D model of the omniscient narrator DM is a feature or a flaw. Is it a historical accident that the game evolved as it did, just because of the personalities involved and their origins in the wargaming world? Could a similar game but with cooperative narration have evolved and colonized our brains so that in an alternate universe we see that as the default paradigm, and see D&D-style games as the indie outliers?

This is tying back into my musings elsewhere on why D&D-style games are so dominant in the RPG sphere. Are they naturally more populist, or did they just get there first?

Most of my Dms have a world with the background plot. They know what the players don't. Occasionally they'll do stuff like, "you're slogging through the swamp...what do you see?" and let us narrate it. This will, sometimes, impact our journey and, other times, just be a touristy thing. We often have the freedom to interject our own ideas into the fiction: "I went to high school with this NPC and he owes me a favour!" Generally, there's a 'loosy-goosy' rule for this (bennies or inspiration or whatever) but they let the players change the story.

I'm not sure if that's what you're asking. It definitely has not been the traditional gaming style and I'm not sure if it's been added to our games because we have matured as players and see that there are different ways to play the traditional game or if we've played so many different games that we just take the things we enjoy and apply them to all our games - including D&D.