D&D General How much control do DMs need?

[hawkeyefan]

So a couple of things with this post...

1. To be fair I've seen most (maybe all) of those stating this saying the world feels more real (with an implied or explicitly stated) to them.

Some have at times, sure. But if you don't think that it's an assumed state of any and all games for a good number of folks, then I think you're not paying close enough attention.

It's a preference. It's not a starting point. It's not foundational.

2. You're conflating consistency with pre-preparation... they aren't the same. there may be some saying they prefer pre-prep worlds... there may be some saying they prefer one DM/GM... then there are some who are saying they prefer pre-prep and a single DM/GM and finally there may be some who prefer collaborative pre-prep game.

No, I'm not. I'm saying explicitly that they are not the same. More control need not result in more consistency.

3. I don't think D&D requires any level of prep beyond the same espoused for BitD or DW if the DM is familiar enough with the material and has the right tools. Honestly I think anyone could run a D&D 5 room dungeon with little to no pre-prep (especially utilizing D&D Beyond... the crux isn't game systems... it's styles of GM'ing /DM'ing.

So this is kind of an example of what I'm talking about. Many games are not intended to be run/played in a variety of styles. Some have a deliberate design meant to provide a specific experience.

Some games are absolutely more predisposed toward preparation than others. I'd say most require at least a little. D&D requires more than many games. That there is a range within D&D (depending on edition and how much we want to consider house rules and the like) doesn't mean there is such a range in all games, or if there is, that it's as wide as it appears to be with D&D.

Sone are more comfortable improv'ing while some are not.
It's not necessarily a preference, in the same way not everyone can give a 10 min speech off the cuff, some people are not going to be good at DM'ing off the cuff... while others will be naturals.

I describe it as a preference because that's how I view it. If someone is not comfortable with something and they avoid it, that's their preference. If they are comfortable with something, but don't enjoy it, that's their preference. I don't want to cast it in a more negative light than that, like it's a shortcoming.

The point though is that it's a quality of the person, not the game.

I think because D&D gives one the permission to pre-prep though it's going to attract a greater number of DM's/GM's who prefer that style along with players who prefer that style as well.

I don't think that the big factor of what attracts people to D&D is it's play style. I think it's market presence and brand recognition. It's everywhere RPGs are, and is the most known name in the industry. I think there are people who enjoy that playstyle for sure... there are even those of us who enjoy it as well as other types of games. But I'd say that the way D&D does things is responsible for more people leaving D&D than it is for those coming back to D&D.

There are many who start with D&D and never try other games, so I'd exclude them from the above.

As for "need" it's a loaded term. If I have a table of players that don't want to collaborate then my need could be 100% on the flip side if i have a table of players who find that the most enjoyable part of a ttrpg then need will be 0%... along with the fact that it could very much fluctuate between the two spectrums based on time, interests, etc. However I wouldn't presume to tell any particular group what their actual need is or isn't.

Well, "need" is the topic of the thread. And what you've described above again sounds more like preference.

When I think of "need" I think of what is necessary at minimum. You've said you can run a 5-room dungeon with little to no prep. So it sounds to me like you're saying D&D requires little to no prep.

Which is a bit different than DM control, but prep is a big part of how a DM controls the game.

 

[hawkeyefan]

By that logic a Bugs Bunny cartoon is just as real as the Yellowstone TV series my wife and I have been watching. Neither one may be realistic, but they are not the same just because they are both fictional.

Well, neither one is more real than the other. One may be more realistic than the other, or resemble the real world more than the other. But neither is objectively a more real world.

But more importantly, we're talking about two things that would otherwise be similar. A better example would be two episodes of Yellowstone, one written by one writer, and the other written by a pair of writers. Which will be more realistic when it's all done?

I'd think it could be either.

And? Your point? Because my point is that in the real world I can only affect the world around me by my actions, by what I do. I can't suddenly make a million dollars appear in my bank account because it would be better for my life story if it did. That perspective, what a PC can control and how they can change in the world is closer to reality.

What kind of example is that? Have you ever read an example of play where someone cited how their character made a million dollars appear from nowhere to resolve all their problems?

Ceding some DM control doesn't result in this kind of hyperbolic absurdity. No one plays the way you've described.

You're also mixing up players and characters. If I as player get to make a choice, it doesn't mean the character is making a choice. No more than they are when you come up with the character's backstory and other details.

As is the preference for more or less DM authority.

Yes!

Nope. I improv all the time. I know how my world works so what I invent on the fly will be consistent. But planned ahead of time? Nah. I plan general outlines for my games but most of my planning is figuring out NPCs, organizations, general location ideas. Even then a significant portion of NPCs are improved using a list of random names that I have handy.
Some level of prep? Well, sure. Much/most/all? Not even close. A lot of my best sessions have been almost completely made up as I go along.

So then you don't think a DM needs a lot of control?

 

[Imaro]

Well, "need" is the topic of the thread. And what you've described above again sounds more like preference.

When I think of "need" I think of what is necessary at minimum. You've said you can run a 5-room dungeon with little to no prep. So it sounds to me like you're saying D&D requires little to no prep.

Which is a bit different than DM control, but prep is a big part of how a DM controls the game.

And... you're doing it again. Amount of improv and prep are not indicators of whether a game is singularly or collaboratively created. You keep saying you aren't conflating the two... but you are.

 

[Oofta]

Well, neither one is more real than the other. One may be more realistic than the other, or resemble the real world more than the other. But neither is objectively a more real world.

But more importantly, we're talking about two things that would otherwise be similar. A better example would be two episodes of Yellowstone, one written by one writer, and the other written by a pair of writers. Which will be more realistic when it's all done?

I'd think it could be either.

What I disagree with was

I think what frustrates me about these conversations is that one form of making things up is offered as "more real" or "objectively real" and so on than another form of making things up. Which is just odd since in both cases, things are being made up.

Because different forms of game play can absolutely feel more or less "real" to the people playing the game. Yellowstone feels more real to me than Bugs Bunny. That doesn't mean I can't enjoy both, just that one is something I could see happening and the other has a cartoon rabbit that would never get lost if they remembered to take a left at Albuquerque.

What kind of example is that? Have you ever read an example of play where someone cited how their character made a million dollars appear from nowhere to resolve all their problems?

Ceding some DM control doesn't result in this kind of hyperbolic absurdity. No one plays the way you've described.

You're also mixing up players and characters. If I as player get to make a choice, it doesn't mean the character is making a choice. No more than they are when you come up with the character's backstory and other details.'

Okay, if I go to a friend's house for dinner and forgot to bring the desert I can't just have a flashback and remember that I actually put it in the trunk of my car. The scale doesn't matter, the point is that I have no narrative control over the real world. I don't want it in my TTRPG either.

Yes!



So then you don't think a DM needs a lot of control?

When I'm improving I still have full control of everything other than the PCs and how their actions impact the world around them. There's no correlation between prep, improv and DM control.

There is no right or wrong here, so I don't know why you're trying to twist what I say around to mean something that's explicitly the opposite of what I've stated as a preference.

 

[hawkeyefan]

And... you're doing it again. Amount of improv and prep are not indicators of whether a game is singularly or collaboratively created. You keep saying you aren't conflating the two... but you are.

Okay... which is it that you think I'm conflating? Prep and consistency as you first said, or prep and collaboration?

Let me know which one it is, and I'll explain why you're wrong.

Because different forms of game play can absolutely feel more or less "real" to the people playing the game. Yellowstone feels more real to me than Bugs Bunny. That doesn't mean I can't enjoy both, just that one is something I could see happening and the other has a cartoon rabbit that would never get lost if they remembered to take a left at Albuquerque.

Yeah, I understood. Whose D&D game is the Bugs Bunny cartoon and whose is Yellowstone in your comparison? Because I imagine two D&D games would very likely be more similar than Bugs Bunny and Yellowstone, which makes the comparison less useful.

We're not talking about the content of the fiction, but the means of creation. The content may be exactly the same.

Okay, if I go to a friend's house for dinner and forgot to bring the desert I can't just have a flashback and remember that I actually put it in the trunk of my car. The scale doesn't matter, the point is that I have no narrative control over the real world. I don't want it in my TTRPG either.

What? You could have brought the dessert. That's control.

Can you rewind time and make it so that you had it all along? Of course not. But again, that's not what's happening in the fiction. In the fiction, the character always had the dessert. This is the distinction between player and character that I was talking about.

Now, that may not be something you like as a player, and you may feel it makes things less believable or whatever. But I may feel it's less believable that my character would forget the dessert. It's a matter of preference.

Neither is objectively more real.

When I'm improving I still have full control of everything other than the PCs and how their actions impact the world around them. There's no correlation between prep, improv and DM control.

I'm not sure how I should read this. Did you mean there's no correlation between prep & improv, and DM control? Or prep, improv, and DM control?

There is no right or wrong here, so I don't know why you're trying to twist what I say around to mean something that's explicitly the opposite of what I've stated as a preference.

I'm not trying to twist what you say. I'm trying to understand what you say.

 

[Imaro]

Typically, what most people are saying is that they want or need (or believe that they need) that amount of control to depict a consistent fictional world. It's their preference, which is fine. However, it's nothing more than a preference.

Folks should instead say "I can't depict a consistent fictional world unless I prepare much/most/all of it ahead of time".

This was the original statement I replied to... in it you claim that what people are saying is that they need control to depict a consistent fictional world....but what they "should" say is they need prep to create a consistent fictional world.

You're conflating consistency as having some type of 1:1 correlation with pre-preparation. A pre-prepped world can be inconsistent, they don't equate. You're further conflating control and prep... which again aren't the same thing. I can pre-prep a world collaboratively and I can improv a world as a single GM.

 

[Imaro]

Neither is objectively more real.

You realize you're the only one talking "objectively" more real...right?

 

[clearstream]

I think what frustrates me about these conversations is that one form of making things up is offered as "more real" or "objectively real" and so on than another form of making things up. Which is just odd since in both cases, things are being made up.

Agreed that it's not so far all that well defined. To me, one notion is that the world is objective from the players' perspective. It's external to them. As you caution, we shouldn't conflate the meanings of objective and real. It's still an act of imagination... just not of their imagination.

That's one facet. Another is to do with the sorts of inputs the system takes. It possible feels more subjective when most inputs are facts about the player characters. More objective when more inputs are facts about the game world.

 

[Oofta]

Okay... which is it that you think I'm conflating? Prep and consistency as you first said, or prep and collaboration?

Let me know which one it is, and I'll explain why you're wrong.

Gee, that makes me all warm and fuzzy knowing that I've finally met the keeper of ultimate truth.

Yeah, I understood. Whose D&D game is the Bugs Bunny cartoon and whose is Yellowstone in your comparison? Because I imagine two D&D games would very likely be more similar than Bugs Bunny and Yellowstone, which makes the comparison less useful.

We're not talking about the content of the fiction, but the means of creation. The content may be exactly the same.



What? You could have brought the dessert. That's control.

Can you rewind time and make it so that you had it all along? Of course not. But again, that's not what's happening in the fiction. In the fiction, the character always had the dessert. This is the distinction between player and character that I was talking about.

Right. The player decided that something relatively important actually happened even though they didn't state that it happened when we were prepping to leave. I understand the flashback scenario as part of a game, I just dislike it unless it's truly trivial stuff. You may not consider it going back in time, but based on the descriptions I've read in other discussions on this topic, I would.

Or ... another example. I can't declare that my character has established business connections in the town we're visiting if I haven't previously established that reality with approval from my DM.

Now, that may not be something you like as a player, and you may feel it makes things less believable or whatever. But I may feel it's less believable that my character would forget the dessert. It's a matter of preference.

Neither is objectively more real.

There is no objective reality in a fictional game so calling something objective is meaningless. Every judgement, every opinion of how well the world is represented and how real if feels can only be subjective. The character affecting the world outside of their actions that can impact the world feels less realistic to me.

I'm not sure how I should read this. Did you mean there's no correlation between prep & improv, and DM control? Or prep, improv, and DM control?

Preparation ahead of time versus improvising things at the time of the game have nothing to do with DM control.

I'm not trying to twist what you say. I'm trying to understand what you say.

I'm not sure how I can be any clearer. The game world my PC inhabits feels more real if the only impact I have on the ongoing fiction of the world is due to the actions and deeds of my PC. I enjoy the game more, it feels more logical, if the DM controls the fiction of the world. It doesn't change whether I'm the DM or playing a PC.

Depending on the campaign, as a player I have an impact on the world outside of my PC is when I'm establishing my character's background story. Even then, I make proposals and the DM makes the final call. There may be times when I ask for additional clarification for the description of the world (i.e. "Is there a blacksmith in town?") but that's not changing the fiction of the world, it's just the DM deciding if something they didn't include in the description really does exist.

 

[hawkeyefan]

This was the original statement I replied to... in it you claim that what people are saying is that they need control to depict a consistent fictional world....but what they "should" say is they need prep to create a consistent fictional world.

You're conflating consistency as having some type of 1:1 correlation with pre-preparation. A pre-prepped world can be inconsistent, they don't equate. You're further conflating control and prep... which again aren't the same thing. I can pre-prep a world collaboratively and I can improv a world as a single GM.

Others stated that DM control... with prep being the main example thereof... led to a "more real world" or that it was an "objective world" or "more believable". I responded to that trend in the posts. If it does so, then it's a preference, nothing more. There is nothing objective about it.

If you disagree with that let me know, but it sounds like you don't.

You realize you're the only one talking "objectively" more real...right?

Nope... I just looked back over the past couple of pages, and several posts did this. Several of which you "liked".