D&D General How much control do DMs need?

[Clint_L]

What RPG is this not true of?

What RPGs is this not true of?

I considered this question, in both cases. So, I think it is mostly true, but there are degrees. My speculation is that D&D-style games have a weird combination of a ton of rules and a ton of ambiguity. So you've got lots to work with, in order to hack, and much of the art is in figuring out what ways to do so are best suited to your own taste and talent. And the game is almost unplayable without hacking. I don't think that is true of all RPGs. I can sit down and play Fiasco out of the box without changing a single rule.

As a counter-example, take my favourite RPG, Dread. You can hack Dread, and I do, but when the rules fit on the back of a napkin, there's only so much you can do (more than you would think, with a Jenga tower, but still). Whereas half of this entire forum is people discussing ways to hack D&D and related games, or expressing their personal approach to how to play it.

Edit: maybe another way of looking at it is: what does this game do great? Dread is great at building narrative tension, which is something that I greatly value. Is it accurate to say that D&D is great at getting players, especially the DM, to build? I feel like I am fumbling in the dark for what I actually want to express.

I write about music a lot, and one of my favourite reads is "The Number Ones", over on Stereogum. The writer, Tom Briehan, begins with the premise that it doesn't really matter whether he personally likes a song or not, the simple fact that it managed to make it to the top of the charts makes it worth discussing (though he explicitly does not rule out the popular audience being wrong, he avoids resting on this possibility as much as possible, with a few notable exceptions). I don't want to focus on what makes D&D good or not good, but on what makes it work for so many people.

 

[Enrahim2]

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.

This is a very interesting argument. Let me try to dive a bit deeper into the issue.

Imagine there instead for one person being DM of a game, we had 4 separate players with the following roles:
One player A describes all adventure content. The goal of this player is to make the game fun for the players playing the standard player characters.
One player B is making all judgements on what happens in any situation based on their understanding of what has been described by A (posiblibly privately) and their understanding of rules and other expectations (like realism or what is cool). Their only goal is to make the game feel fair and predictable.
One player C is controlling most NPCs created by A. Their only goal is to portray the NPCs as accurately as they can according to A's (possibly private) descriptions.
The last player D is controlling all direct adversaries introduced by A, or turned adversaries trough C's controll. Their goal is to further those NPCs goals as well as they can, preferably at the party's expense.

In this situation introduce adversial resource mechanics for player A would as far as I can see be purely restrictive. There shouldn't really be any situation where A would introducing any "unfair" element, given their goal of pleasing the PC players (and not player B, C or D). Hence I don't see the empowerment mechanism you describe would work for this case?

Moreover player D would never have to feel they have to pull their punches.

"Unfortunately" for practical reasons all of these 4 roles has been folded into one person. This has the social side effect that D has been significantly disempowered in most groups as the players, and even the DM themselves don't trust something bad happening because it indeed is D that made a clever move, and not A or B not doing their job properly due to being corrupted by their close relation to "person D".

From such a perspective your proposed change is indeed a zero sum game, as you are restricting A (and to some extent person B), in order to allow person D more free reins due to their suspected ability to corrupt A and B is reduced.

This might however point toward other ideas for actually increase the total empowerment if somehow A, B, C and D could be somehow more separated, as that would reduce the power restraint associated with the trust issues. In D&D this is to some extent done with A often being partially split out trough use of published adventures. Person B is also to a larger extent played by the game designers during combat due to the tight rules leaving less room for interpretation. Many other games try to solve it with even stronger designer presence as player B.

This process taken to the extreme can be found in the board game Descent journeys into the dark 1st or spend edition. Here there were clearly defined adventures (A), strict clear restricted rules (B) no characters with any personality (removing need for C) Allowing a player to take exclusively the D role to their full power, never even thinking of pulling any punches.

 

[loverdrive]

D&D is very hackable, and as someone who generally likes to ask "what if I did this instead of that?" this offers a great starting place. It almost demands hacking. Is there a single table that does not have a plethora of house rules?

I would disagree. Like, really, really disagree. D&D isn't hackable. Well, it isn't any more hackable than any other tabletop game by the virtue of humans resolving all the rules and being able to agree to resolve them differently.

To be brutally honest, I can't help than to scratch my head in confusion every time someone says that D&D is hackable/flexible/just a toolbox. No, it isn't! Look at the rules! If a game "designed to be flexible" can't handle the most basic stuff, like "nobody really cares about this trivial fight, can we just condense it into a single roll?" or "we really care about this non-combat scene, can we add more mechanical gravitas to it?", then it failed miserably!

As an example of a "toolbox" game, let's take a look at Fate. The Golden Rule of Fate is that there are many rules that can be used to resolve any particular situation, and you must choose the most appropriate one.

Talking to someone can be (when I say "you", I mean "your character"):

1. Nothing, if there's nothing substantial to be accomplished. You just say what you want to say and the other character responds: saying "Hi" to a friend; contemplating about the nature of free will while gazing upon the false sun; etc
2. A single roll, if there's something to be accomplished, but it's not interestingenough to drag out:
   1. Overcome roll, if it's an obstacle to, well, overcome: persuading the bouncer to let you into the bar; getting your ma to let you sleep over at friend's house; etc
   2. Create Advantage roll, if the goal is to sow seeds to be used later: convincing someone that you are actually bitcoin millionare, so you can scam them; cheering up your friend with a "friendship is magic!" speech, so they can act at 101%; etc
   3. Attack roll, if your goal is to hurt them with words: making fun of an NPC; etc
   4. Defence roll, if they are attacking you, and you are choosing words to defend yourself: "please don't hit me!"
3. A Challenge, if you want to focus on the process more: convincing Legate Lanius that Hoover Dam ain't worth it
4. A Contest, if you and some other characters have mutually exclusive goals, but can't harm each other: making a case that it's your department that needs to receive a budget increase, not Janice's
5. A Conflict, if you and another character can and want to hurt each other: an explosive falling out between lovers, "I'm the one carrying this family! Do you think we could live off your indie RPGs?! You will starve in a ditch!", "Oh, yeah, do you know why you still have that job? Because I'm banging your boss!"; etc

....and then there's Bronze Rule that allows to enable all the rules that apply to characters to apply to anything, but that's a bit too Fate-y to explain here.

And the same applies to any situation: swordfight, picking a lock, whatever. Fate doesn't say "any swordfight is always a conflict" the way D&D does. You consider the situation and what do you want to get out of it, and pick the most appropriate tool.

D&D doesn't work that way. It gives you tools of very limited applicability, doesn't explain how to use them, and then you are expected to hack something on the fly when the situation arises.

And even if it's not hacking per se, Fate allows you to adjust the level of detail whenever you create any content. Let's say you need a monster. You write "Mind Goblin: 2" on a piece of paper, boom, done! You have a perfectly usable monster that has a single aspect (Mind Goblin) and a single skill (Mind Goblin) that it can roll if needed. Need more detail? Sure, you can add more aspects, create dedicated skills, add stunts, hell, create a separate statblock for each of Hydra's heads. If you need to.

D&D has two modes: you either just wing it, or you have a full-blown statblock. No in-betweens.

 

[Oofta]

I know that some people are uncomfortable with the GM role only constrained by vaguely defined conventions, but don't think it is any sort of coincidence that overwhelming majority of RPGs being played rely on this "GM decides" principle. It simply produces the sort of experience most people prefer. It's not a bug, it is a feature.

I agree. Part of the reason I like D&D is that, for lack of a better way of putting it, gets out of the way in order for us to generate the ongoing narrative. Part of that is while D&D is in no way a simulation of the real world, it does put the characters into an in-universe perspective with minimal meta-game knowledge by default. The more rules you add that are supposed to be enforced on the DM, the more the focus becomes on the meta-game for me.

We saw a bit of that meta-game in 4E with skill challenges with their forced structure. Nowadays I may use a skill challenge structure for my own tracking as a DM, but I'll describe the challenges, setbacks and successes to the players from a PC perspective. There is no announcement of "You need X successes before Y failures using skills A,B and C." I don't even really care for inspiration (and almost never seen it used in any games) because it has so little in-world justification.

I think a lot of that is accomplished by having a D&D style GM. Not only does it smooth over rules details in order to keep the action flowing, the players don't ever have to think of the game from the DM's perspective. Yes, the PCs are constrained by rules in a way that the DM is technically not, but that's just enforcing the in-character perspective. I couldn't effectively perform brain surgery any more than a barbarian can cast fireball.

On the other hand the DM is constrained by the social expectations of the group even if they are not constrained by the group.

 

[niklinna]

I would disagree. Like, really, really disagree. D&D isn't hackable. Well, it isn't any more hackable than any other tabletop game by the virtue of humans resolving all the rules and being able to agree to resolve them differently.

To be brutally honest, I can't help than to scratch my head in confusion every time someone says that D&D is hackable/flexible/just a toolbox. No, it isn't! Look at the rules! If a game "designed to be flexible" can't handle the most basic stuff, like "nobody really cares about this trivial fight, can we just condense it into a single roll?" or "we really care about this non-combat scene, can we add more mechanical gravitas to it?", then it failed miserably!

As an example of a "toolbox" game, let's take a look at Fate. The Golden Rule of Fate is that there are many rules that can be used to resolve any particular situation, and you must choose the most appropriate one.

Talking to someone can be (when I say "you", I mean "your character"):

1. Nothing, if there's nothing substantial to be accomplished. You just say what you want to say and the other character responds: saying "Hi" to a friend; contemplating about the nature of free will while gazing upon the false sun; etc
2. A single roll, if there's something to be accomplished, but it's not interestingenough to drag out:
   1. Overcome roll, if it's an obstacle to, well, overcome: persuading the bouncer to let you into the bar; getting your ma to let you sleep over at friend's house; etc
   2. Create Advantage roll, if the goal is to sow seeds to be used later: convincing someone that you are actually bitcoin millionare, so you can scam them; cheering up your friend with a "friendship is magic!" speech, so they can act at 101%; etc
   3. Attack roll, if your goal is to hurt them with words: making fun of an NPC; etc
   4. Defence roll, if they are attacking you, and you are choosing words to defend yourself: "please don't hit me!"
3. A Challenge, if you want to focus on the process more: convincing Legate Lanius that Hoover Dam ain't worth it
4. A Contest, if you and some other characters have mutually exclusive goals, but can't harm each other: making a case that it's your department that needs to receive a budget increase, not Janice's
5. A Conflict, if you and another character can and want to hurt each other: an explosive falling out between lovers, "I'm the one carrying this family! Do you think we could live off your indie RPGs?! You will starve in a ditch!", "Oh, yeah, do you know why you still have that job? Because I'm banging your boss!"; etc

....and then there's Bronze Rule that allows to enable all the rules that apply to characters to apply to anything, but that's a bit too Fate-y to explain here.

And the same applies to any situation: swordfight, picking a lock, whatever. Fate doesn't say "any swordfight is always a conflict" the way D&D does. You consider the situation and what do you want to get out of it, and pick the most appropriate tool.

D&D doesn't work that way. It gives you tools of very limited applicability, doesn't explain how to use them, and then you are expected to hack something on the fly when the situation arises.

And even if it's not hacking per se, Fate allows you to adjust the level of detail whenever you create any content. Let's say you need a monster. You write "Mind Goblin: 2" on a piece of paper, boom, done! You have a perfectly usable monster that has a single aspect (Mind Goblin) and a single skill (Mind Goblin) that it can roll if needed. Need more detail? Sure, you can add more aspects, create dedicated skills, add stunts, hell, create a separate statblock for each of Hydra's heads. If you need to.

D&D has two modes: you either just wing it, or you have a full-blown statblock. No in-betweens.

This highlights two very different ideas of "hacking"—recombining or adjusting available parts to fit a variety of situations ("hackable"), versus having to introduce whole new parts and subsystems to fill in gaps ("demands hacking").

 

[Oofta]

I would disagree. Like, really, really disagree. D&D isn't hackable. Well, it isn't any more hackable than any other tabletop game by the virtue of humans resolving all the rules and being able to agree to resolve them differently.

To be brutally honest, I can't help than to scratch my head in confusion every time someone says that D&D is hackable/flexible/just a toolbox. No, it isn't! Look at the rules! If a game "designed to be flexible" can't handle the most basic stuff, like "nobody really cares about this trivial fight, can we just condense it into a single roll?" or "we really care about this non-combat scene, can we add more mechanical gravitas to it?", then it failed miserably!

Says who? Why can't we? I don't bother with simple fights if the outcome is certain because, as the DMG states, you don't bother asking for rolls if there's no uncertainty.

As an example of a "toolbox" game, let's take a look at Fate. The Golden Rule of Fate is that there are many rules that can be used to resolve any particular situation, and you must choose the most appropriate one.

Talking to someone can be (when I say "you", I mean "your character"):

1. Nothing, if there's nothing substantial to be accomplished. You just say what you want to say and the other character responds: saying "Hi" to a friend; contemplating about the nature of free will while gazing upon the false sun; etc
2. A single roll, if there's something to be accomplished, but it's not interestingenough to drag out:
   1. Overcome roll, if it's an obstacle to, well, overcome: persuading the bouncer to let you into the bar; getting your ma to let you sleep over at friend's house; etc
   2. Create Advantage roll, if the goal is to sow seeds to be used later: convincing someone that you are actually bitcoin millionare, so you can scam them; cheering up your friend with a "friendship is magic!" speech, so they can act at 101%; etc
   3. Attack roll, if your goal is to hurt them with words: making fun of an NPC; etc
   4. Defence roll, if they are attacking you, and you are choosing words to defend yourself: "please don't hit me!"
3. A Challenge, if you want to focus on the process more: convincing Legate Lanius that Hoover Dam ain't worth it
4. A Contest, if you and some other characters have mutually exclusive goals, but can't harm each other: making a case that it's your department that needs to receive a budget increase, not Janice's
5. A Conflict, if you and another character can and want to hurt each other: an explosive falling out between lovers, "I'm the one carrying this family! Do you think we could live off your indie RPGs?! You will starve in a ditch!", "Oh, yeah, do you know why you still have that job? Because I'm banging your boss!"; etc

....and then there's Bronze Rule that allows to enable all the rules that apply to characters to apply to anything, but that's a bit too Fate-y to explain here.

And the same applies to any situation: swordfight, picking a lock, whatever. Fate doesn't say "any swordfight is always a conflict" the way D&D does. You consider the situation and what do you want to get out of it, and pick the most appropriate tool.

D&D doesn't work that way. It gives you tools of very limited applicability, doesn't explain how to use them, and then you are expected to hack something on the fly when the situation arises.

It doesn't give one mechanical tool, it gives multiple options because there are simply too many variables involved. Someone upthread mentioned a game where the resolution to jumping a chasm is to roll 2d6 and it's predefined what happens. Except ... what if the chasm is so wide that it would practically take a miracle to jump? What if it should be easy, but don't trip over that root as you leap?

You keep equating lack of specific hard-coded rules for a lack of tools for resolution. Those tools exist and are explained in multiple places whether you accept it or not. They just aren't defined in a way that you personally care for. It's fine to have criticisms, but the hyperbole isn't convincing.

 

[pemerton]

I know that some people are uncomfortable with the GM role only constrained by vaguely defined conventions, but don't think it is any sort of coincidence that overwhelming majority of RPGs being played rely on this "GM decides" principle. It simply produces the sort of experience most people prefer. It's not a bug, it is a feature.

I think the overwhelmingly popular way of playing D&D, at least since the mid-80s, is an approach in which the GM is almost all of the game: the setting, the situation, the framing, the consequences. Combat is something of an exception; some dungeon crawling sometimes is too. But I think most RPGers don't want the sort of game play in which the GM is not almost all of the game.

 

[pemerton]

Imagine there instead for one person being DM of a game, we had 4 separate players with the following roles:
One player A describes all adventure content. The goal of this player is to make the game fun for the players playing the standard player characters.
One player B is making all judgements on what happens in any situation based on their understanding of what has been described by A (posiblibly privately) and their understanding of rules and other expectations (like realism or what is cool). Their only goal is to make the game feel fair and predictable.
One player C is controlling most NPCs created by A. Their only goal is to portray the NPCs as accurately as they can according to A's (possibly private) descriptions.
The last player D is controlling all direct adversaries introduced by A, or turned adversaries trough C's controll. Their goal is to further those NPCs goals as well as they can, preferably at the party's expense.

In this situation introduce adversial resource mechanics for player A would as far as I can see be purely restrictive. There shouldn't really be any situation where A would introducing any "unfair" element, given their goal of pleasing the PC players (and not player B, C or D). Hence I don't see the empowerment mechanism you describe would work for this case?

Doesn't it solve the problem of deciding how many tarrasques to place?

Moreover player D would never have to feel they have to pull their punches.

Only if we assume some sort of "balance" between D's resources and that of the participants to whom D plays the adversaries. And @loverdrive's mechanic is one way of achieving that balance.

This might however point toward other ideas for actually increase the total empowerment if somehow A, B, C and D could be somehow more separated, as that would reduce the power restraint associated with the trust issues.

Burning Wheel has an explicit rule that the players can always ask the GM to tell them the points cost of a monster the GM introduces into play.

4e D&D has rules that tightly connect the challenge posed by an encounter, and the XP awarded, and the XP needed for a level, and the number of encounters needed for a milestone, and the number and content of treasure parcels per level. This is a more convoluted but, in my experience, nevertheless functional version of the "threat pool" approach. In my experience it basically solves the problem of "trust issues".

This process taken to the extreme can be found in the board game Descent journeys into the dark 1st or spend edition. Here there were clearly defined adventures (A), strict clear restricted rules (B) no characters with any personality (removing need for C) Allowing a player to take exclusively the D role to their full power, never even thinking of pulling any punches.

Presumably the elements in the adventure are mechanically defined in a way that produces good play.

This is an important issue in a threat pool or 4e-type design: the actual design work has to be properly done.

 

[loverdrive]

Says who? Why can't we? I don't bother with simple fights if the outcome is certain because, as the DMG states, you don't bother asking for rolls if there's no uncertainty.

OK, how you will condense a fight into a single roll?

How would you handle an actually dangerous fight (or a gauntlet of fights), where PCs might be hurt, but the only acceptable outcome is success? (e.g. the party is fighting their way through the Big Bad Evil Guy's tower -- it's not like they can die, as they must fight BBEG, but it's not like they will breeze through it without a scratch)
How would you handle an actually dangerous fight, where killing the enemy isn't the actual goal? (e.g. when two swordsmen fight to learn about each other's weaknesses)

Not even mentioning the situation where a physical fight is just a thematic representation of a mental one, and nobody actually cares about the swings or parries.

 

[pemerton]

Someone upthread mentioned a game where the resolution to jumping a chasm is to roll 2d6 and it's predefined what happens. Except ... what if the chasm is so wide that it would practically take a miracle to jump? What if it should be easy, but don't trip over that root as you leap?

Dungeon World and similar games have fairly straightforward solutions to these "problems".