D&D General How much control do DMs need?

[pemerton]

I don't know how DW works in practice, I've only read the rules. I assumed that part of mapping and setting up location moves included possible obstacles.

Preparing fronts in DW has relatively little in common with (say) writing up an adventure like Keep on the Borderlands or The Sunless Citadel. I mean, both are types of GM prep for a RPG, and both involve imagining some stuff - but what is prepared, how it is prepared, and its role in framing actions and resolving declared actions is completely different.

I've explained why I like D&D's resolution systems, DM-centric control of the world, the more free form resolutions outside of combat.

And @loverdrive and I have explained why we prefer other RPGs.

My disagreement with you is in respect of your assertion that DW is just like D&D but with lower fidelity of resolution.

 

[pemerton]

So let's take this chasm as an example.
The DM has introduced it as an obstacle which the PCs must overcome to get to their destination but the PCs have a variety of methods to overcome such obstacle.

Why has the GM introduced this obstacle? What trajectory of play has brought it about that the PCs must overcome this obstacle to achieve the goal of arriving at such-and-such a place?

Until we understand the logic that underpins the framing you have described, how can we even talk about its resolution in (say) 4e D&D, in Dungeon World or in Burning Wheel?

Here is Manbearcat making the same point:

Take a look at @darkbard ’s post above the first framed obstacle in the conflict you’re referring to. Through his character, he provides the impetus for the following scene in the way of his Minor Quest. In Story Now games, this is called “player protagonism” and is essential. The trajectory of play doesn’t orbit around my (the GM’s) conception of what’s important.

Here's a different illustration, from Burning Wheel. I'm quoting from p 269 of Revised, but the text is the same in Gold and Gold Revised:

Finally, there is the sacred and most holy role of the players. In Burning Wheel games, players have a number of duties:

*Prime among them is the responsibility to offer hooks to their GM and the other players in the form of Beliefs, Instincts and traits . . ..

*Players in Burning Wheel must use their characters to drive the story forward . . .

* Use the mechanics! Players are expected to call for a Duel of Wits or a Circles test or to demand the Range and Cover rules in a shooting match with a Dark Elf assassin. Don't wait for the GM to invoke a rule - invoke the damn thing yourself and get the story moving!

* . . . If the story doesn't interest you, it's your job to create interesting situations and involve yourself.​

Here are some concrete examples from actual play:

*My GM has a thing for Elves. Some Elven NPCs turned up and helped my PC and his sidekick with some Orcs. The Elves wanted us to join them pursuing more Orcs. I wanted the Elves to join me in liberating Auxol, my ancestral estate. So I called for a Duel of Wits to persuade the Elf. I failed miserably (poor stats, and probably poor scripting too) but I achieved my goal - that play was not about the Elves issue with the Orcs, it was about my issues with my family and our estate.

My sidekick had as one Belief that "I won't *end my career with no coin and no spellbooks" (or very much along those lines). So I decided that she recalled that Evard's tower was nearby. And I invoked the mechanics - in this case, Wises checks - and the GM worked out the obstacle to recall the location of Evard's tower using Great Masters-wise and I rolled the dice and succeeded; and after some debate between my main character and my sidekick (played by the GM in the Duel of Wits) we travelled to Evard's tower.

*I decided the time had come to return to Auxol. I said to the GM, "Now that we're on the borders of Auxol I wonder if we'll meet any of my family members?" And we worked out the obstacle, and I rolled the dice (Circles plus relevant Affiliations) and succeeded, and we met my brother. That encounter, and the way it played out, was perhaps the most intense roleplaying I've experienced in 40 years in the hobby.​

This is a framework for play that is completely different from 5e D&D. The role of the players, and the role of the GM, are completely different. The rules for calling for a check, and who can call for one, are completely different. The principles that govern the framing of scenes and the narration of consequences are completely different.

Could someone try and emulate BW using 5e D&D? Maybe - use Bonds, Ideals and Flaws in place of Beliefs, Instincts and traits; use INT instead of Wises, and CHA instead of Circles; use "say 'yes' or roll the dice" as the core principle for calling for checks. I've never heard of anyone doing this, but maybe it's going on out there. There will be obvious problems that crop up, beginning with the fact that by default, in D&D, casting spells doesn't require a check at all. Perhaps those tables who are doing this have come up with workarounds - I don't know, because if they exist they're utterly invisible to me here on ENworld.

Could someone try and emulate 5e D&D using Burning Wheel? I think so, but you'd have to drop "say 'yes' or roll the dice" as the core principle for calling for checks, and you'd have to completely change the way Wises and Circles work: the former would become 5e-like knowledge checks, and the latter a type of Streetwise skill.

Personally, I think the "hacks" to BW would be easier than the hacks to 5e D&D. But in any event, I don't think these possibilities of drifting change the fact that the RPGs, as presented to their readers and players, are radically different in the ways I've described.

 

[AnotherGuy]

@pemerton out of interest

I decided the time had come to return to Auxol. I said to the GM, "Now that we're on the borders of Auxol I wonder if we'll meet any of my family members?" And we worked out the obstacle, and I rolled the dice (Circles plus relevant Affiliations) and succeeded, and we met my brother. That encounter, and the way it played out, was perhaps the most intense roleplaying I've experienced in 40 years in the hobby.

The bold part - Is that work done between player and DM or can the entire table chip in? Am I correct in imagining that this procedure takes time at the table as different thoughts/ideas are suggested by the participants, picking out of the favourites and checking them against story already established at the table for consistency purposes?
I'm imagining 5-10 minutes, perhaps longer as the campaign progresses?

 

[clearstream]

Why has the GM introduced this obstacle? What trajectory of play has brought it about that the PCs must overcome this obstacle to achieve the goal of arriving at such-and-such a place?

Until we understand the logic that underpins the framing you have described, how can we even talk about its resolution in (say) 4e D&D, in Dungeon World or in Burning Wheel?

Here is Manbearcat making the same point:
Here's a different illustration, from Burning Wheel. I'm quoting from p 269 of Revised, but the text is the same in Gold and Gold Revised:

Finally, there is the sacred and most holy role of the players. In Burning Wheel games, players have a number of duties:​

​

*Prime among them is the responsibility to offer hooks to their GM and the other players in the form of Beliefs, Instincts and traits . . ..​

​

*Players in Burning Wheel must use their characters to drive the story forward . . .​

​

* Use the mechanics! Players are expected to call for a Duel of Wits or a Circles test or to demand the Range and Cover rules in a shooting match with a Dark Elf assassin. Don't wait for the GM to invoke a rule - invoke the damn thing yourself and get the story moving!​

​

* . . . If the story doesn't interest you, it's your job to create interesting situations and involve yourself.​

Here are some concrete examples from actual play:

*My GM has a thing for Elves. Some Elven NPCs turned up and helped my PC and his sidekick with some Orcs. The Elves wanted us to join them pursuing more Orcs. I wanted the Elves to join me in liberating Auxol, my ancestral estate. So I called for a Duel of Wits to persuade the Elf. I failed miserably (poor stats, and probably poor scripting too) but I achieved my goal - that play was not about the Elves issue with the Orcs, it was about my issues with my family and our estate.​

​

My sidekick had as one Belief that "I won't *end my career with no coin and no spellbooks" (or very much along those lines). So I decided that she recalled that Evard's tower was nearby. And I invoked the mechanics - in this case, Wises checks - and the GM worked out the obstacle to recall the location of Evard's tower using Great Masters-wise and I rolled the dice and succeeded; and after some debate between my main character and my sidekick (played by the GM in the Duel of Wits) we travelled to Evard's tower.​

​

*I decided the time had come to return to Auxol. I said to the GM, "Now that we're on the borders of Auxol I wonder if we'll meet any of my family members?" And we worked out the obstacle, and I rolled the dice (Circles plus relevant Affiliations) and succeeded, and we met my brother. That encounter, and the way it played out, was perhaps the most intense roleplaying I've experienced in 40 years in the hobby.​

This is a framework for play that is completely different from 5e D&D. The role of the players, and the role of the GM, are completely different. The rules for calling for a check, and who can call for one, are completely different. The principles that govern the framing of scenes and the narration of consequences are completely different.

Could someone try and emulate BW using 5e D&D? Maybe - use Bonds, Ideals and Flaws in place of Beliefs, Instincts and traits; use INT instead of Wises, and CHA instead of Circles; use "say 'yes' or roll the dice" as the core principle for calling for checks. I've never heard of anyone doing this, but maybe it's going on out there. There will be obvious problems that crop up, beginning with the fact that by default, in D&D, casting spells doesn't require a check at all. Perhaps those tables who are doing this have come up with workarounds - I don't know, because if they exist they're utterly invisible to me here on ENworld.

Could someone try and emulate 5e D&D using Burning Wheel? I think so, but you'd have to drop "say 'yes' or roll the dice" as the core principle for calling for checks, and you'd have to completely change the way Wises and Circles work: the former would become 5e-like knowledge checks, and the latter a type of Streetwise skill.

Personally, I think the "hacks" to BW would be easier than the hacks to 5e D&D. But in any event, I don't think these possibilities of drifting change the fact that the RPGs, as presented to their readers and players, are radically different in the ways I've described.

Great post and I agree that played in the most common modes, there are distinct differences along the lines you discuss. One can picture a mirror phrasing for D&D that might be illustrative (I won't get the words right here, but it's the idea that's important)

Finally, there is the sacred and most holy role of the DM. In D&D, dungeon masters have a number of duties:

*Prime among them is the responsibility to offer hooks to the players in the form of dramatic plots, intriguing mysteries and provocative NPCs

*Dungeon masters in D&D must use their peoples, monsters, and supernatural forces to drive the story forward . . .

* Use the mechanics! Dungeon masters are expected to call for a contest Cha Intimidation or to invoke the ranged combat and cover rules in a shooting match with a Dark Elf assassin. Don't wait for players to invoke a rule - invoke the damn thing yourself and get the story moving!

* . . . If the story doesn't interest your players, it's your job to create interesting situations and involve them.

It could be right to say that players also have "a sacred and holy role" in D&D, so the above is incomplete in that regard. Anyway, I think the last point informs all those above it. I find myself reflecting on if it is right that participants have different roles or jobs to do in the game? Are there some jobs in common, and some better held by a subset of participants? Or better held by a subset in respect of the remainder, in alternation? D&D offers one opinion on that - not the definitive one although in the past it has probably been taken as definitive by many. Or left unexamined.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

And as you say,
This reiterates that what is relevant in Dungeon World is not the environment as described "objectively" by the GM ("You come to a 20' wide chasm"), but rather the narrative logic and trajectory of play, and the status of something as a threat, or an opportunity, and how that is established in relation to prior play and player priorities.

Play in Dungeon World can't be "objective". It's inherently normative - "thread", "opportunity", "useful", "having fun" - these are normative notions, and are at the core of DW play. (My actual model here is AW, but I think that DW follows it pretty closely.)

I think a lot of people prefer the feeling that there is objective fictional reality that matters, and thus the DW approach might rub them up the wrong way.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

I think a lot of people prefer the feeling that there is objective fictional reality that matters, and thus the DW approach might rub them up the wrong way.

There's still an objective fictional reality that matters.

It's just that that reality is one we determine (in part) together, over time. The DW rules, for example, explicitly tell the GM to "exploit your prep" with the following text (emphasis in original): "In all of these things, exploit your prep. At times you’ll know something the players don’t yet know. You can use that knowledge to help you make moves. Maybe the wizard tries to cast a spell and draws unwanted attention. They don’t know that the attention that just fell on them was the ominous gaze of a demon waiting two levels below, but you do."

You cannot have the above if there isn't a fictional reality to make use of. But, unlike D&D, more than one person can join in the process of expanding that fictional reality.

I knew who the real murderer was when the PCs attended a masquerade ball turned murder mystery--that was part of the prep. Whether they could catch the murderer...that was the challenge. They asked questions I expected and questions I didn't, and we wound our way through the story to the end, where they did succeed in correctly identifying the real murderer, and in so doing preventing a major diplomatic incident, earning both themselves and their patron (the Sultana of their home city) useful allies.

You must "draw maps, leave blanks." But that means you DO draw maps--which means the maps must point to somewhere that (fictionally) "really" exists. But you also leave blanks. You, the GM, don't know absolutely everything that exists within the objective fictional reality. Sometimes, you'll fill in a blank as part of your prep. Other times, you'll fill it in when you "ask questions and use the answers," or when you "think offscreen, too," or when you "make a move that follows" (though you "never speak the name of your move"--GM moves are pretty functional things, so calling out their names would be rather disengaging.)

 

[Imaro]

There's still an objective fictional reality that matters.

It's just that that reality is one we determine (in part) together, over time. The DW rules, for example, explicitly tell the GM to "exploit your prep" with the following text (emphasis in original): "In all of these things, exploit your prep. At times you’ll know something the players don’t yet know. You can use that knowledge to help you make moves. Maybe the wizard tries to cast a spell and draws unwanted attention. They don’t know that the attention that just fell on them was the ominous gaze of a demon waiting two levels below, but you do."

You cannot have the above if there isn't a fictional reality to make use of. But, unlike D&D, more than one person can join in the process of expanding that fictional reality.

I knew who the real murderer was when the PCs attended a masquerade ball turned murder mystery--that was part of the prep. Whether they could catch the murderer...that was the challenge. They asked questions I expected and questions I didn't, and we wound our way through the story to the end, where they did succeed in correctly identifying the real murderer, and in so doing preventing a major diplomatic incident, earning both themselves and their patron (the Sultana of their home city) useful allies.

You must "draw maps, leave blanks." But that means you DO draw maps--which means the maps must point to somewhere that (fictionally) "really" exists. But you also leave blanks. You, the GM, don't know absolutely everything that exists within the objective fictional reality. Sometimes, you'll fill in a blank as part of your prep. Other times, you'll fill it in when you "ask questions and use the answers," or when you "think offscreen, too," or when you "make a move that follows" (though you "never speak the name of your move"--GM moves are pretty functional things, so calling out their names would be rather disengaging.)

This is interesting... I was always under the impression from previous discussions that a game like DW wasn't supposed to rely on secret DM knowledge or pre-determination of facts and prep... but it seems here you are saying it does in fact allow for that (in fact you seem to be claiming it must contain such). Am I perhaps confusing this witrh Forged in the Dark, and/or is this just one of two (or more ) ways DW can be ran?

 

[Imaro]

I can see value in everyone at the table understanding what "HP" means and their significance, but I fail to see how any of it is enhanced by lack of tools.

Like, in Fate everyone understands what Stress is or "defend with Will" means, and I can't see how it would be better if GM couldn't just pick an existing option from the toolbox instead of hacking together a bad ad-hoc solution on the spot.

Aren't hit points a measure of how close your character is to death in D&D... Mechanically speaking that's all they are.

EDIT: As for in-game or fictional representation well that's whatever you want to skin it as... so long as it is in line with what they are mechanically.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

This is interesting... I was always under the impression from previous discussions that a game like DW wasn't supposed to rely on secret DM knowledge or pre-determination of facts and prep... but it seems here you are saying it does in fact allow for that (in fact you seem to be claiming it must contain such). Am I perhaps confusing this witrh Forged in the Dark

It is complicated.

There is a general preference that you engage in what is called "no-myth" gaming. But, as I said, the text actually explicitly says "exploit your prep," which is...pretty hard to do if you don't have any knowledge in advance. More or less, DW is geared for the GM coming in with no preplanned campaign--no setting, no locations, no premises--until you have at least Session Zero. But that doesn't mean adventures after that cannot have any prep work.

Different people disagree about exactly how...thorough you should be with "no myth." Is it fair to start with a loose map, that the players can modify during Session Zero? Can you pitch a very specific premise like "all-centaur game where the PCs are fighting off strange two-leg invaders who have enslaved terrifying, fire-breathing metal monsters," or is that something that has to be hashed out via Session Zero? Once the campaign has begun, do you still need to stick rigidly to "NOTHING WHATSOEVER can be true unless it's directly seen on-camera," or can you have prepared things off-screen? If you can, how much? Etc.

I tend to favor relatively low-myth. I do prepare certain truths, or forces primed to do something. I try to avoid preparing plots, and instead focus on events, locations, and (potential) consequences. Oftentimes, those locations are in places we simply haven't looked before. That's easy in the setting, because it's in a big country with a Moroccan-like environment, so there are many, many square miles of empty desert or arid land where secrets could have been hiding for centuries or even millennia.

Some DW GMs prefer to go for essentially no myth ever, at any point. I don't personally grok that, but if it works for them, great. I see things like "think offscreen, too" and "exploit your prep" as indicating that there should be some stuff the GM knows that the players don't know, but that that should be (a) kept to a relative minimum and (b) only done in order to have prep that can be exploited, not just for its own sake. Point (a) comes from "think offscreen, too"--the structure implies that you should be thinking on screen most of the time, but some of the time, you should augment it with offscreen stuff. Point (b) comes from "exploit your prep"--prep that isn't exploitable isn't worth preparing, more or less.

But, then again, I've also been told by more than one person that I don't really run DW properly. Maybe I'm the crazy one here.

 

[clearstream]

There's still an objective fictional reality that matters.

For me this continues to miss the distinction. Maybe because it's hard to really get at what one means by objective. As a poster notes upthread

Play in Dungeon World can't be "objective". It's inherently normative - "thread", "opportunity", "useful", "having fun" - these are normative notions, and are at the core of DW play. (My actual model here is AW, but I think that DW follows it pretty closely.)

There's a sense I think that objective means a world that doesn't inherently care about the player characters. It's not inspired by them and doesn't spin out of them. The converse is true. This is a place that can contain that which the players might never have dwelt upon.