D&D General How much control do DMs need?

[Lanefan]

You're missing an unstated premies in @Imaro's question:
@Lanefan often makes similar remarks that rest on a similar unstated premise.

You called?

I haven't been following this thread at all so I've no idea what perhaps-similar-to-mine remarks I've missed.

The premise is this: that it is important that the imagined stuff the players engage with is the product of someone else's imagination.

This is also, as best I can tell, what @Crimson Longinus and @Oofta mean by an "objective fictional reality" (which of course read literally is somewhere between waffle and oxymoron).

Because it's the product of someone else's imagination, a player can learn about it by asking that other person to tell them what they're imagining!

Whereas something that is the product of one's own imagination is not an object of discovery.

Well, except when it's first imagined by the person doing the imagining, I suppose.

But absent that, it would seem the concept of exploration (i.e. the characters exploring the setting much like we might explore the real world) kinda goes out the window if there's nothing in place to explore; which means someone or something has to first put it there. And exploration as a part of RPG play is important to some of us.

 

[AnotherGuy]

@pemerton, perhaps this is not the correct thread for this, but since you've already expressed within this thread that you do not enjoy exploring the DM's imagination I was wondering if you have ever enjoyed a computer game where essentially it is you being active (not passive like the enjoyment of a movie) but are exploring the designer's imagination and thus as player you have limited control?

 

[Oofta]

WTF?

Here's what you quoted:

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.​

​

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.​

You have been using the notion of "fidelity" so I assume you know what that is.

You've read DW, so you know what a "front" is.

You've played D&D, so presumably you know what Keep on the Borderlands and The Sunless Citadel are.

You a human being, so presumably you know what "imagining some stuff" is.

You don't know what "framing" means? Like "to set up", "to establish the context for". Googling a definition gives me "to formulate (a concept, plan, or system)" which does similarly well, although I think the use in RPGing might be closer to a usage from film or theatre.

You don't know what "resolving" an action means? Like "to establish what flows from something". Googling a definition gives me "to clear up, resolve doubts, resolve a dispute".

Anyway, upthread you asserted that DW is just like D&D but with less fidelity (your phrasing). Are you still asserting that?

So your answer to the question "how much control do DMs need" is LOTS.

Your preference in RPGing, as a player, is to learn what another person has imagined about some stuff.

(I'm not putting much weight on "my options to overcome an obstacle depend on my PC's capabilities" because as far as I'm aware that's true of every RPG.)

Btw, no one said that the GM's decisions are "arbitrary". I didn't. @loverdrive didn't. I said that they make the GM almost all of the game. And in what I'm quoting you're agreeing with that and saying that that's what you want!

Hence why I don't understand your tone - as if you disagree with me - when it seems obvious that you in fact agree.

Dude, I shouldn't bother getting into these discussions, it's not worth it. This is not a PbtA forum, it's a D&D forum. I don't want to be insulting but I am never going to use terminology you accept. I may have seen the term "front" in the rules but that doesn't mean it really jelled. If you can't accept that phrases like "the soft move made by the GM as part of framing" is word salad to people who don't play DW enough to have it engrained then I'm not sure what to tell you.

The language usage barrier just gets too much in the way on a forum like this. It's just leading to a frustrating sort-of conversation. For example when I tried to talk about how you declare the actions the character is taking in DW feels artificial to me (based on my reading of the rules) you responded with something about moves and only D&D has actions. Except I wasn't talking about actions in D&D terms, I was attempting to use plain English, action as "My character does something." Which, yes, in DW is a "move" but that is a very specific game term. It's a redefinition of the standard meaning.

I've explained multiple times why I prefer D&D's approach of the DM controlling the world and players interacting with that world via their PC and only their PC. When I DM I don't think in terms of framing, narrative or "moves". As a DM I set up the world and it's denizens, as a PC I just say what I do. Occasionally we get into geek speak game specific terminology as one of our friends who's a newbie recently pointed out. But when we do it tends to be more abbreviations and shortcuts than anything.

DW works for you, I've read enough rules and examples to know that it wouldn't work for me. That doesn't make either approach better or worse. It's also pointless because I simply don't speak your language.

 

[Oofta]

In all the GMing of DW (and alike) that I’ve run, not a single moment of play (not a one) has generated an orientation to our shared imagined space that is anywhere near approaching Loony Toons themes or causal logic.

No holes penned on a sides of mountains in which characters disappear into (until the next comes along and splats into the face).

No one man bands.

No giant ACME caches with rockets and sledges and skis and oversized hammers.

No running off the side of a cliff and scrambling in thin air for a moment, standing in space long enough to pull out a sign that says “oops”, then fall a massive distance and survive.

No “rabbit season, duck season, NOW SHOOT!”

Etc etc.

I love Looney Toons and have watched probably half as much as hours I’ve GMed DW (and derivative). There is nothing kindred between the two in either feel of experience or governing dynamics.

I have no idea what you could be getting at here and why you would invoke Loony Toons to relate the whatever it is you’re attempting to drive home. Is it that you have an absurdist view of DW? DW is not absurdist in any way, so if you have an imagined contempt based on imagined absurdism, that is one you can let go.

I was attempting a bit of levity, no insult intended. I was just pointing out that different genres are different.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

But absent that, it would seem the concept of exploration (i.e. the characters exploring the setting much like we might explore the real world) kinda goes out the window if there's nothing in place to explore; which means someone or something has to first put it there. And exploration as a part of RPG play is important to some of us.

Can't every player be "exploring" what the other players are providing? That is, this again seems to be predicated on the notion that it is impossible to explore unless one, singular, other person has already perfectly nailed down everything to be explored, as Pemerton said. That seems a pretty narrow conception of "exploration"--almost to the point of circularity. Why is it impossible for the whole group to be collectively exploring together? It seems perfectly reasonable that you "contribute" (and thus do not "explore") say, 10-15% of the world for each PC player, and the GM player contributes the remaining 25% to 50%. Everyone--including the GM!--is heavily or primarily exploring, and the players are overwhelmingly exploring. I don't see how the small amount of contributing nixes the feeling of exploration.

Indeed, at least in my experience with the games I've run and played, I have seen significantly more exploration. Players act more boldly in a story-and-performance sense. They do more creative and unexpected things. Much as some folks complain about certain games causing players to simply scan their character sheets rather than play, I find "trad" gaming encourages players to simply become passive receivers of DM dictation. Sure, they'll accept quest hooks or whatever, but they won't engage any further because there's no need--the DM is there to narrate it to them, so let the DM do the narration, heck, it could even be rude to rob the DM of the stuff they've prepared. Passively receive the story, because as long as you follow the bread crumbs, the story will always come to you.

 

[Imaro]

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.

I disagree with the sentiment that it is objectively true. I think for certain types of people it creates the feeling of a more believable world in the same way that I have seen those who advocate for collaborative worldbuilding claim the same, citing things like the fact that their character would know more about the world than they do as a player and collaboration helps with that. If calling it a preference works for you fine but as I said earlier I never assumed or felt it was implied that this went beyond that particular posters feelings. Personally my players find the exploration of a singularly created world with minor collaborative efforts during the game to suit us best... not sure which side that would place me on.

 

[Imaro]

On D&D and prep: the Monster Manual, the lists of magic items, etc - these are all GM prep. It's hard to do D&D without them.

I'm genuinely curious...How is any of this prep, it's already created? I'm not building the stats, or anything else you've listed just using them when I want or need them.

 

[Imaro]

You're missing an unstated premies in @Imaro's question:
@Lanefan often makes similar remarks that rest on a similar unstated premise.

The premise is this: that it is important that the imagined stuff the players engage with is the product of someone else's imagination.

This is also, as best I can tell, what @Crimson Longinus and @Oofta mean by an "objective fictional reality" (which of course read literally is somewhere between waffle and oxymoron).

Because it's the product of someone else's imagination, a player can learn about it by asking that other person to tell them what they're imagining!

Whereas something that is the product of one's own imagination is not an object of discovery.

No this isn't what I'm saying. People can think of new things all the time, come up with new interests all the time so you've mislabeled my position here. My point is that why limit it to only what the DM thinks of or only what the players think of. Does a game have to be totally driven by either one? I don't believe so but I could be wrong.

Right now I am running a West Marches, player and DM driven campaign. The players all came up with their goals for entering the North (think of it like 4e's player created quests) and add small details to the North when they feel like it or when I prompt them, especially since it's massive and I've left space for new things to be created... but, I have also created vast swaths of the North with what piques my curiosity and what I think would interest my players as well. Will I force them to interact with any of it, nope. But I have played with these people for years and I know what they enjoy and so I'm pretty sure that along with pursuing their own goals and marking their own creations in the world they will more than likely find some if not all of what I have created, engaging as well. This is where I am in my playstyle. Think the Tao of Bruce Lee... I don't want to be defined or restrained by outdated structures that claim what I can or can't do. I'm taking what works best for me from any playstyle and combining it at this point and as long as we're (my groups) are having fun I could care less about principles and right or worng ways I SHOULD be playing.

Now even good storytelling games (eg like A Penny For My Thoughts) have techniques to mediate between just making up one's own stuff, and engaging with or integrating the stuff that others imagine. And once we get to RPGs like (say) DW or BW, there are very sophisticated design features that exploit the asymmetric participant roles to achieve this sort of mediation and integration. Most posts from @Oofta and @Lanefant don't acknowledge those design features, and the associated techniques, and so just presume that if the player gets to exercise imagination then the player is just making it all up - but that's simply a result, as best I can tell, of not having any or any real familiarity with the games in question.

But the previous paragraph doesn't alter the basic point, that there is an unstated premise about where the imagined stuff should come from.

My experience is that if you bring this premise to the surface by describing it as "an objective fictional reality" you will be praised, and if you bring it to the surface as "learning what someone else has imagined" or "learning what someone else has written down about what they imagined, perhaps in note form" you will be criticised. But the different descriptions are all referring to the same thing.

If you thing that discovering what someone else has imagined is fundamental to being a RPG player, then you will naturally think that the GM should have a LOT of control!

I can't really comment on what other posters think but this misses the mark as far as what I personally think and utilize when running games.

 

[Imaro]

Can't every player be "exploring" what the other players are providing? That is, this again seems to be predicated on the notion that it is impossible to explore unless one, singular, other person has already perfectly nailed down everything to be explored, as Pemerton said. That seems a pretty narrow conception of "exploration"--almost to the point of circularity. Why is it impossible for the whole group to be collectively exploring together? It seems perfectly reasonable that you "contribute" (and thus do not "explore") say, 10-15% of the world for each PC player, and the GM player contributes the remaining 25% to 50%. Everyone--including the GM!--is heavily or primarily exploring, and the players are overwhelmingly exploring. I don't see how the small amount of contributing nixes the feeling of exploration.

Indeed, at least in my experience with the games I've run and played, I have seen significantly more exploration. Players act more boldly in a story-and-performance sense. They do more creative and unexpected things. Much as some folks complain about certain games causing players to simply scan their character sheets rather than play, I find "trad" gaming encourages players to simply become passive receivers of DM dictation. Sure, they'll accept quest hooks or whatever, but they won't engage any further because there's no need--the DM is there to narrate it to them, so let the DM do the narration, heck, it could even be rude to rob the DM of the stuff they've prepared. Passively receive the story, because as long as you follow the bread crumbs, the story will always come to you.

I think your second paragraph relies on some assumptions that I'm not sure are true. You seem to imply if not outright state that... trad gamers are somehow creatively lazy (as opposed to knowing the type of valid playstyle they wish to engage in). It almost feels patronizingly like if only they would try this other playstyle... they'd be creative as opposed to brain dead zombies being pulled along by the DM as he stuff-feeds them his failed novel. Let me say this... it's insulting... and there have been similar complaints about non-trad games as well falling apart because the players weren't creative.

 

[clearstream]

Can't every player be "exploring" what the other players are providing? That is, this again seems to be predicated on the notion that it is impossible to explore unless one, singular, other person has already perfectly nailed down everything to be explored, as Pemerton said. That seems a pretty narrow conception of "exploration"--almost to the point of circularity. Why is it impossible for the whole group to be collectively exploring together? It seems perfectly reasonable that you "contribute" (and thus do not "explore") say, 10-15% of the world for each PC player, and the GM player contributes the remaining 25% to 50%. Everyone--including the GM!--is heavily or primarily exploring, and the players are overwhelmingly exploring. I don't see how the small amount of contributing nixes the feeling of exploration.

This is one reason I keep mentioning Ironsworn in these threads. It's easy to pick up and play, to experience exactly how exploring what oneself and other players have imagined can work. @Lanefan I would recommend it, if time permits. The pdf is free on RPGNow.

Indeed, at least in my experience with the games I've run and played, I have seen significantly more exploration. Players act more boldly in a story-and-performance sense. They do more creative and unexpected things. Much as some folks complain about certain games causing players to simply scan their character sheets rather than play, I find "trad" gaming encourages players to simply become passive receivers of DM dictation. Sure, they'll accept quest hooks or whatever, but they won't engage any further because there's no need--the DM is there to narrate it to them, so let the DM do the narration, heck, it could even be rude to rob the DM of the stuff they've prepared. Passively receive the story, because as long as you follow the bread crumbs, the story will always come to you.

I know players who only want to explore, or at least that's their focus. They're not interested in contributing anything on the creating-things-to-explore side, and doing so can be detrimental to their suspension of disbelief (as others in this thread have reported.) They do want to contribute on the who-their-character-is and what-their-character-does side. Other participants (including trad GMs) typically pilfer from the former to create-things-to-explore which they will most likely be interested in. Meaning that they do end up contributing... which can extend to the ways that @Imaro describes. Like many things in TTRPG, cases in the domain are highly heterogenous.