D&D General How much control do DMs need?

[AbdulAlhazred]

One might summarize this by saying: the entire game is merely a set of suggestions, which the DM can and will sweep aside whenever and wherever it suits them. Consistency is the result of DMs choosing to be consistent, and nothing more; same for fairness, impartiality, and whatever other virtues one might invoke. There isn't even a way to talk about being a "good" DM versus a "bad" DM, because nothing in the text says enough for that to be judged. We can't even talk about "trust," because there aren't any grounds upon which trust may be established. There's just a person at a table saying some words. Are they good words? Bad words? Weird words? Who knows! The DMG certainly won't help you figure that out.

Well, at this point I kind of have to pull back a bit in the sense that COMMON USAGE does exist. I think its safe to say that even if you just read 5e cold you WOULD assume that all this stuff has a point and you'd be expected to use a lot of it. Its more of a question of how, why, and when? Clearly step 2 of the loop (resolve a character action) is where this kind of stuff would appear, and presumably any reasonable person would assume that there's a separate mode of play, which is combat, even though the core of the rules doesn't actually tell us this. At that level, I'm not sure anything about this core rule's vagueness actually makes any of the other parts of the game 'more optional' than they mostly seem to be anyway. Anyway, 5e is also not too good about saying "this is optional". 2e actually was pretty good about that, but then 2e was kind of a mess overall...

 

[Enrahim2]

One might summarize this by saying: the entire game is merely a set of suggestions, which the DM can and will sweep aside whenever and wherever it suits them. Consistency is the result of DMs choosing to be consistent, and nothing more; same for fairness, impartiality, and whatever other virtues one might invoke. There isn't even a way to talk about being a "good" DM versus a "bad" DM, because nothing in the text says enough for that to be judged. We can't even talk about "trust," because there aren't any grounds upon which trust may be established. There's just a person at a table saying some words. Are they good words? Bad words? Weird words? Who knows! The DMG certainly won't help you figure that out.

It is not quite that simple. There are some things prescribed. The players need to prepare a form according to quite strict rules and bring them to that activity. However how these forms are used later in the activity is indeed prescribed by suggestions rather than rules. Some suggestions are stronger and more elaborate than others though. For instance a DM might use various tricks to formally avoid declaring combat, but if that formality is invoked we are entering into a procedural regime that I would say is even more tightly game-defined than DWs counterpart.

As for defining what is "good" and "bad" DM. Why would you want the text to say anything about that? The rules of the game snake and ladder for instance do not say anything about what a good player looks like. Still I there are certain things that is common knowledge makes a snake and ladder player better than another despite both adhering to the very strict and well defined procedures of the activity: Not being a sore loser, roll in a timely manner and display of aproperiate engagement (rather than apathy) are some examples that come to mind.

Moreover the absence of clear performance criteria for its participants is the big fat well known common trait of almost all ttrpgs that have had theorists struggle with figuring how the activity still appear to be reasonably considered a game vs simply play.

And finally there have been arguments that D&D could be considered an art form. And attempts of trying to talk about what makes "good" vs "bad" art tend to prove utterly futile. So why should the DMG try? If an artsy DM ask their players to prepare their forms and then proceed to lead a shared story session with no reference to those forms at all - as a wider comment on bureaucracy, how could you say if this is good or bad DMing?

(As for if they in this case actually would be playing D&D at all I think the act of bringing that form and deferring to another participant to organise an activity is indeed enough to at least being quite recognizable as something very similar to playing D&D. I cannot see how an argument against it being actually playing D&D could be made without invoking potentially controversial criteria. Anyway, this is beside the point I am trying to make with regard to the issue of defining good vs bad play)

 

[Enrahim2]

<Double post>

 

[EzekielRaiden]

As for defining what is "good" and "bad" DM. Why would you want the text to say anything about that?

Because it would be useful. It would tell us skills, knowledge, and actions that are generally worth pursuing--DMing is not such a special-snowflake utterly-unique performance that there cannot be commonalities. It would help alleviate common mistakes that many inexperienced DMs run into, by explaining how and why those mistakes can occur and what one can do to prevent them, or address them if they've already happened. It would let us concentrate the wisdom of past DMs into productive instruction, as is the case with any body of technical understanding (be it art, science, or practice.)

Why else would you want to know examples of good and bad results in a particular activity?

And finally there have been arguments that D&D could be considered an art form. And attempts of trying to talk about what makes "good" vs "bad" art tend to prove utterly futile. So why should the DMG try? If an artsy DM ask their players to prepare their forms and then proceed to lead a shared story session with no reference to those forms at all - as a wider comment on bureaucracy, how could you say if this is good or bad DMing?

And yet we recognize poor technique from excellent technique: we recognize that Leonardo da Vinci had greater skill than a five-year-old child has, even though we do not disparage the five-year-old child for not having that skill. (Indeed, we celebrate their efforts, or at least we should, while also pushing them to improve, which can only happen if it is possible to distinguish grades of performance.) We recognize that cuisine is doubly subjective, subjective for the chef and subjective for the diner, and yet we also recognize (at times, with significant financial rewards!) that some chefs are better-skilled and other chefs are worse-skilled. We do, in fact, develop both formal and informal ways of evaluating the food we eat.

It would seem the problem you're having here is, you think my request is about the content of the work, the meaning of the words, the flavor of the food, the depiction on the canvas. That's trivially not even possible to critique. But the structure of the poem ("you're writing a sonnet, but the meter is wrong"), the preparation of the dish ("if this is sushi, it's not supposed to be cooked"), the method of the painting ("you're going for realism, but the shadows don't match one another on the subject's face")--in other words, the technique which expresses the content--can be, and in general will be judged by those who experience it.

There is no such thing as bad cuisine. But there is such a thing as bad sushi, a bad implementation of a specific goal in food preparation. Surely, then, we recognize that while there cannot be an inherently bad campaign concept--e.g., the rather unorthodox example you mentioned cannot be "good" or "bad," it simply is--there can be bad ways to implement that concept.

I could not possibly care less what campaign content a DM might wish to implement. I care a great deal, however, about actually teaching people how to implement whatever content strikes their fancy in an effective, productive way. Because DMing is inherently a difficult thing already. Making it any more difficult than it needs to be is bad for the game in a multitude of ways.

 

[clearstream]

Because there's an agenda, and principles of play, so all the stuff on DW P160 and following applies! In other words, the GM has a set of criteria governing their introduction of fiction, as well as all the stuff that tells us what the genre is, who the PCs are, etc. in the first chapter. So what is the problem? The GM describes the starting fiction, addressing some aspect of one of the characters or maybe introducing a threat, etc. The PCs react, making nonspecific moves essentially, and the GM calls for checks to resolve things. If a player says "Groz leaps across the chasm!" the GM can ask for 2d6 to be thrown. On a 10+ Groz has made the leap, on a 7-9 he's at the other side, but maybe he's in immediate danger, or he has to drop his backpack, etc. on a 6-, uh oh!

So in this case participants are deciding on the fly what will count as "doing the thing", what success does ("the thing"), what success with complication does ("the thing" and "complication" probably described by GM), and what failure does (probably trouble described by GM.) The dice method is employed according to written principles, introduction to fiction, and who PCs will be.

I can definitely run that! I mean, it is not going to be the most straightforward thing to run, you can immediately see why the basic moves exist! However it will work, and its intended not as a proposed game design, but as an illustration of the simplicity and completeness of the PbtA 'core'. Everything else that adheres to that is superstructure intended to improve game play.

For a group who have their own principles, fiction and PCs in mind, the dice method alone may be sufficient.

As for 'FKR', I have no idea. Free Kriegsspiel, actual real FK, is the model that trad play is built on. It has an all-powerful referee, and if there are rules they are all scenario-specific and simply provide a toolbox for the referee to use to adjudicate situations as they see fit. FK has no 'top level' structure beyond "the referee adjudicates everything and each player assumes a role, has objectives, and can declare any action they wish" Even turn structure is defined entirely by the referee. I have no idea what 'R' adds to this, but if FK uses dice it is simply at the pleasure of the referee for their own utility. This is NOT what I'm proposing at all! I'm proposing simply playing 'Dungeon World' without bothering with specific move rules. Again, its an exercise, not a game design, but it is quite doable and is not anything like FK. In fact it gives the GM LESS POWER than normal DW because normally the GM decides which move the PC made. Here that decision is moot...

FKR stands for Free Kriegspiel Revolution and you'll see rulesets like Messerspiel which is "ultra-light roleplay inspired by Blades in the Dark". There is a relatively small but passionate group of RPGers who find a game text like Messerspiel not only sufficient, but empowering. The Invisible Rulebooks, Less Rules To Do More, and Worlds, Not Rules talk over some of the purposes folk have in mind for FKR.

If one picks up a ruleset like D&D and can't see what to do with it, then it makes sense to want the principles etc to be written out. Notwithstanding concerns expressed in this thread, that doesn't seem to be a widely felt shortfall. Perhaps because folk seldom come to games in a state of cultural tabula rasa. Their form of life helps them grasp the implied meaning. So for me, when I read those concerns, some seem more connected with ideals and preferences while others seem more fundamental to how I define RPG. Potentially forming a hierachicy, from high-level (applicable to all or nearly-all RPG) to lower-level (applicable to some modes, purposes-for, or families of RPGs), as follows.

1. If we define RPG as we have elsewhere, as ongoing authorship of common fiction, through a continuous process of drafting and revising, that all participate in, with linkage between fiction and system, then

a) an example high-level principle might be one at the core of AW - given one wants to supply momentum to the drafting and revising via the linkage between fiction and system, it makes sense to structure methods accordingly (fail-forward describes an approach)

b) an example lower-level principle might be - given one disfavours participant-decides, then it makes sense to have rules that delimit decisions (if one is comfortable with or even prefers participant-decides, one wouldn't want to constrain that... much as FKR advocates)

c) another might be - given one favours a designer's fiction, one wants an explanation of that fiction (although I think here, one's wants could go further, e.g. to see that fiction explicated in the game mechanics)

d) another could be - given one disfavours unwritten principles, one wants written principles (which is perhaps a special case of b)

@EzekielRaiden in part this addresses your point. It is of no avail to teach skills specific to sushi making to a cook who prefers to create fondue. If for a group it is satisfying and empowering to avoid written constraints, then it won't necessarily improve their play to teach them how to use written constraints. That group might well understand the difference, and have made a choice that suits their purposes for play.

 

[clearstream]

Again, even this is rather generous in a strict reading of the game text. P6 of the PHB describes the 'game loop', dice are mentioned once in passing in step 2 as something the GM might use.

PHB 5 and 6 explain the cadence of the D&D conversation.

As you say "decides whether a roll is needed", but even more strongly "decides if dice even exist in the game" in a technical sense. There is no actual linkage drawn in terms of general rules between P6, core game process, and any other part of the rules. All of the rest of 5e D&D exists as a kind of codicil that is simply implicated by tradition. This may sound silly, but it means that players have, in effect, no formal say in anything beyond telling the GM what their PC does right now. Reading the rules in a completely objective light is kind of a weird experience actually...

This concern seems to rest on an assumption that players ought to have a formal say, i.e. that DM-decides is no good. A group may be satisfied with DM-decides. They wouldn't find reading the rules a weird experience. FKR advocates especially value participant decisions over written rules.

I absolutely appreciate concerns about DM-decides, but there seems to me no objective criticism to make of a work that says "this is how I function" on the grounds that it functions that way.

 

[loverdrive]

Idk if this was brought up before, but a thought just crossed my mind.

We talk about the distribution of authority as if it's a zero sum game, as if taking the power from someone automatically gives it to someone else. It doesn't.

Let's suppose there's a meta currency that the GM can use to mess with the players (I think 2d20 games have a such? Correct me if I'm wrong), and introduce a complication unpropmted (otherwise they must be clearly telegraphed). Yeah, the GM lost the ability to just paradrop tarrasques from a C-130. Did anybody else gain any more power?

I'm bringing that up, because, uhm, "unfair", unrestricted rules, on top of all other issues, create an additional responsibility of keeping the experience fun for the other side. And that responsibility can and does clash with others (namely, providing a challenge and controlling the opposition).

For a videogame example, again, there's this weapon in Team Fortress 2 called Short Circuit. It is arguably overpowered in specific situations (like when you stand near an ammo dispenser), which, in turn, adds a burden to anyone who chooses to use it: to use it with honour. For contrast, there's no dishonourable way to use a pistol (which occupies the same slot): you can just... Use it. You never have to worry about not using it while pushing cart, accidentally or otherwise.

As for a TTRPG example, let's return to a locked barn.

GM: There's a rusty old lock on a door, probably to keep out wild animals rather than provide any actual security.
Player: Cool, I'm going to pick it. Here it goes... 25!
GM: You pull out your tools and start working your magic... To your dismay, all this flimsy look is just a façade, the lock is actually a masterpiece of engineering, merely camouflaged to look cheap. (Offscreen: the lock also has a magical silent alarm system, and guards will arrive in five minutes)

This situation can make a narrative sense and show how ingenious and careful the opposition is, and GM here might be acting with honour, having planned this in advance and merely portaying the world with integrity rather than playing dirty and actively trying to screw over the players, but who gives a damn? From the player's perspective, they aren't bamboozled by the opposition, they are bamboozled by the GM. There's nothing the GM can possibly do to persuade the player otherwise, that no, she didn't mean to screw them over, it just so happened that the player's chosen approach didn't work.

The GM unquestionably has this authority, but precisely because she has this authority, she can't actually use it. She can't portray the world with integrity and control opposition to the fullest extent because it looks dishonourable -- higher order directive, Playing In A Way That Is Fun For Everyone, overrides both.

Now let's suppose GM has a Trouble Pool, transparent to the players.

GM: There's a rusty old lock on a door, probably to keep out wild animals rather than provide any actual security.
Player: Cool, I'm going to pick it. Here it goes... 25!
GM: (contemplates for a second, whether to give this position up or to defend it) You pull out your tools and start working your magic, but... (dramatically removes a token from the Trouble Pool) To your dismay, all this flimsy look is just a façade (and then GM will use another Trouble Point to pay for guards arriving)

Now, it's fair play. The GM had to sacrifice a resource, so the player wasn't bamboozled, merely outplayed. In giving up complete absolute power, the GM was actually enabled to exercise more power.

 

[Oofta]

I dunno. I agree with the you when you say "the DM still had to decide what kind of wall it was to use the chart, it just offered the illusion of impartiality." and I've always felt that this type of game, where the GM is arbiter of a set of rules, and a set of fictional situations, where the mechanics and the situations are all open-ended is inherently like that, the GM is the game. I agree that GMs then limit themselves, or the players force them to limit themselves perhaps so that some sort of principled play happens (or not...). I do have a pretty good sympathy for @loverdrive's position though, that 5e D&D is so loose in terms of what it prescribes, that you practically have to write the game.

Like I'm looking at the DMG P236 where it talks about 'The Role of Dice', and its like, the game punts! I mean, it describes some things you could do with dice, but there's no actual process of play there! Does the author of 5e actually want you to take the 'Middle Path'? Maybe... but basically that's no criteria at all! Now, right after that another section tries to rectify that, sort of... But all it really says is "make them roll if they might fail", but how does that even mesh with the previous section on the Role of the Dice? Now it talks about whether you can roll again if you fail, and guess what, it doesn't answer the question! In fact nothing actually makes clear what a check resolves, intent or action, nor how it relates back to fiction.

This is all before we even got to difficulty, which is on P238, supplemented by various added sections on P239 (and I never could understand why the DMG talks about the GM granting advantage/disadvantage when they already have the set-a-DC lever).

There is after this a section that seems to be basically optional rules for degrees of success/failure, but fundamentally says "When a check equals or exceeds the DC it succeeds", but what does success mean? Failure isn't really discussed here at all, either except in noting that you could make bad things happen if the check result is really low.

I mean, is this actually a game design? I would say it is game designer notes! I don't want to sound too harsh, but its very wishy washy. The first section of the PHB doesn't really elaborate either. In fact it doesn't even commit to the GM ever needing to consult the rules at all! The Section How to Play on P6 literally does not mention dice, except once in passing as something the GM might possibly use! I could literally follow the rules of 5e to the letter and never pick up a single die or ask a player to do so, and I would be running the game verbatim as described on P6, and consistent with the DMG section on running a game. I admit, it would be very odd, but its actually a VERY ODD GAME. I contrast this with Dungeon World, because the contrast is so stark. Chapter 1 & 2 of DW, and then supplemented by the start of Chapter 13, COMPLETELY defines a game structure just as surely as the rules of Monopoly describes how you play it. AFAICT 5e D&D never actually does this. It never clearly articulates the purpose of making checks, nor does it articulate a rationale and thus requirements for the GM's authoring of fiction.

So, the observation that the GM can set anything to anything, and thus all the 'rules' of 5e are an 'illusion of impartiality' is true, but even more profound is that there's no actual process described for how or when to even invoke those rules! Meanwhile DW is utterly impartial 'difficulty' isn't even really a concept, and the game very carefully spells out when and how ever rule works! Sure, there are some judgment calls about "is this possible?" but there's no partiality there, the table decides, as a whole! And in practice those situations don't intrude on play much, everyone knows halflings cannot simply leap into the air and fly away...

The core books can, and should, do a better job. I've suggested before that the PHB should walk through part of a combat (or even other scenarios) from the player's perspective and the DMG should cover the same scenario from the DM's perspective. Maybe even have a section in the MM talking about how the scenario would play out differently with a different enemy with different abilities and demeanor had been chosen.

But just because the rules could be improved doesn't mean they don't exist. They're too scattered and probably not explicit enough, but they do exist. Saying you "have to invent the game" is simply hyperbole.

While I can't speak to a newbies experience of 5E, the proof is in the pudding so to speak. Millions of people have started playing the game. If it was such a dumpster fire of horrible rules, that would not have happened. I started playing D&D in the dark ages of the game, with Gygaxian prose that had conflicting rules everywhere. Yet we still managed to figure it out. The current rules are such a vast improvement over what we started with back in they day it's a night and day difference.

Having the options to have different styles and play the game slightly differently is core to D&D's success. The fact that we have optional rules, that the book acknowledges that not everyone needs to or wants to play the game exactly the same way is awesome! If you want exactly the same experience as everyone else, play a board or video game. I don't want to have the game as locked down on the rules as Monopoly.

As far as some of the other stuff such as not making it clear the purpose of making checks ... that's simply not true. It talks about different styles and whether or not you want to use dice to resolve uncertainty. It talks about when you can use multiple checks, contests, success and failure but also success at a cost, degrees of failure and so on. Just because they don't prescribe one true way and instead encourage you to make the game your own doesn't mean the information isn't there.

This level of flexibility may not be your preference. But saying the guidance doesn't exist is untrue. It just doesn't try to implement board game levels of specificity to the rules. Thank goodness.

 

[loverdrive]

Meanwhile, games that are essentially big toolsets for putting together different kinds of games let me explore more creatively when I design things in them, and experience a lot of different things playing them. Which to loop back to the thread topic-- I think is a big part of how much power the GM ought to have, they should be able to lend the game (as opposed to the system) creative direction, a heading but not necessarily a path.

I would disagree.

Right now (well, not right right now, but you get what I mean) I'm playtesting a game. Two players take on roles of different drives:

• Steel: discipline, honour, cold calculation
• Blood: passion, love, rage and all the emotions that make us human
• Sun: lust, greed and utter, total domination

They are intentionally vague and intentionally abstract. Finding conflict between the two the players have chosen is their job, it is an integral part of the gameplay.

During the game,

1. A prompt card is drawn (well, it's not actually physically drawn, as the game can only be played with a "VTT"), eg: "Bad Omen", "Betrayal", "Crisis of Faith", "Death of God's Will"
2. The players play out this scene, fleshing it out, right until they disagree about something crucial.
3. The disagreement is then settled using a fighting mini-game, very reminiscent of Dark Souls PVP, but without the jank (I hope at least)
4. The winner narrates the conclusion of the scene
5. The next scene is drawn, and the loser narrates how it starts, with an opportunity to change characters, location or whatever else, scenes themselves don't need to be directly connected to each other

I, as the designer, rule over the game with an iron fist. There never will be a scene "Catboy Café" because I'll never add such a scene card. Yet, every time I played it or watched others play it, the stories, the conflicts, the characters, the mood, the moral were different. Some went for disconnected vignettes, some went for a grand story with multiple leading characters, one time playtesters asked "The visual aesthetics seem to suggest fantasy, but can it be cyberpunk?" and I replied "Yeah?".

The only constant thing was the essence, in a similar way to how every Quake 3 match is different, depending on the map, the players, the micro decisions they make, yet each and everyone of them unmistakably feels like Quake 3.

The same, I guess, can be said about MUJIK IS DEAD, or Monsterhearts, or Wanderhome, but I can't exactly say that I've had a diverse yet unified experience with, say, World of Darkness. Despite all the thematical difference between Vampires and Mages, despite all the difference between Berlin and Shanghai, it was always the same bland slog, and all the times I did bleed (metaphorically, obviously), it was because I've had enough and started cutting myself. Even though I've played way too much of World of Darkness.

 

[pemerton]

For a videogame example, again, there's this weapon in Team Fortress 2 called Short Circuit. It is arguably overpowered in specific situations (like when you stand near an ammo dispenser), which, in turn, adds a burden to anyone who chooses to use it: to use it with honour.

Here's a passage from Dogs in the Vineyard (p 89):

The stage: your room at night. A possessed sinner creeps into your room without waking you. . . .

I should tell you, in an early playtest I startled one of my players bad with this very conflict. In most roleplaying games, saying “an enemy sneaks into your room in the middle of the night and hits you in the head with an axe” is cheating. I’ve hosed the character and the player with no warning and no way out. Not in Dogs, though: the resolution rules are built to handle it. I don’t have to pull my punches!

(You’ve GMed a bunch of RPGs before, right? Think about what I just said for a minute. You know how you usually pull your punches?)​

Now let's suppose GM has a Trouble Pool, transparent to the players.

Right. In MHRP/Cortex+ Heroic we call it the Doom Pool! (Spend a d8 to add a Scene Distinction.)

In other words, once again we're in agreement!