D&D General How much control do DMs need?

[Imaro]

Kind of? I think it depends on which edition, and whether you actually follow the rules. Hardly anybody seems to use the official social encounter rules in the 5e DMG, but if you do, it suggests a very particular kind of prep-heavy play where the DM is repeatedly referencing NPC statblocks (though none of the ones in the MM actually contain the necessary BIFTS....). Likewise, the PHB is crystal clear that players only describe their characters' actions in the fiction, and the DM decides when to call for checks.

The thing is making a single Charisma check roll is also the official "rule" via the PHB... it depends on how the DM and table want to handle it... and IMO that's the way it should be. I don't need the in depth rules for every interaction and I don't always want an in depth system to decide a social action. But both are official ways to handle the situation via the books, what the books don't presume to tell me is what is the "appropriate" situation to use them in... and honestly I like it that way.

To be clear: I don't really agree with the idea that there is a single set of 'best practices' that applies to 5th edition, if only because it's kind of a wishy-washy game. But if you accept the implicit style of play that's actually in the rulebooks (trad with lots of prep), that does narrow things down a lot.

But if there's no prescription of HOW to do things, at least as farf as 5e is concerned,... why are you assuming this is the default? If anything I would argue that through it's tools, lists, examples, pre-made adventures, etc. D&D is only lots of prep if you want it to be.

If a classic 1e dungeon crawl, a 5e railroad, and a radically homebrewed game are all 'playing D&D', then 'playing D&D' must mean something other than playing D&D. What kind of thing is that?

A game that can accommodate all of those styles of play. I get you may not like that answer but it doesn't change the fact that it's a valid answer... perhaps it's the rigid styles that need to be re-examined, especially as to how the majority of ttrpg'ers actually play their games.

 

[hawkeyefan]

I'm not talking about the type of thing that would give players solution to all their problems. I'm talking about the sort of large-scale worldbuilding (someone upthread suggested each player get 10-15% of it and the GM get the remainder) that occurs before play even begins; assuming a homebrew setting as with a canned setting e.g. FR or Greyhawk there's not much worldbuilding left to do - it's all been done for you.

So, when I-as-player am building my bit of the world and Joe-as-player is building his - and probably doing so at different real-world times and places - the odds of conflicts arising when we and the GM try to combine what we've created are pretty high.

And if we do this building process together then there's not much left to explore in play, because we've already seen it all before play began. (same reason I don't much like playing in canned settings e.g. FR or Greyhawk etc.: I-as-player have already seen or heard of the major elements, thus it's not new to me even though it might be to my character)

Assuming this all is being done ahead of time (and I've played/GMed in such a setting that was built collaboratively prior to play) it's not a problem because any conflicts can be resolved prior to play. A solo GM is just as likely to have conflicting details that need to be ironed out at some point. I'd say that such conflicts are more obvious when others are involved... a solo worldbuilder is much less likely to see his own mistakes, such as they are.

As for what's left to explore, I don't think any world is 100% set ahead of time. There are always things to explore. Alternatively, maybe play can be about exploring something other than the map.

It's not a matter of the effort involved, it's a matter of interest. Some players just aren't interested in any aspects of the game other than actual adventuring. Others, and I'm certainly in this number, want to take the DM's setting and interact with it in all sorts of non-adventuring ways that among other things could include:

--- setting up a home base or stronghold, be it for myself or as part of a party-wide initiative
--- setting up a decent home for my character's family, and helping other characters do likewise if asked
--- researching or inventing new spells and-or magic items (if I'm a caster)
--- digging into the history or significance of items found while adventuring e.g. we found a crown, so whose was it and why was it where we found it
--- non-adventure-related exploration e.g. let's fill in that gap on the map even if there's nothing there
--- getting involved in secular politics and-or governance at a local-regional-national level
--- helping with a war, if needed, by spending a few weeks or months on the front lines fighting or working for the side I support
--- bringing food or supplies to a village in need

But note: all of those are alterations to or interactions with the setting as it already exists. None of them involve me creating anything new of significance for the setting, and IMO nor should it. If for example I/we were to explore where the map is blank and the DM said "OK, you fill in what's there" my reply would probably include "That's your job - why are we doing it?"

Well if players are uninterested in this, that's one thing. If that's what the group is expecting, then there's no reason to do it any other way. The thread is about what's "needed"... so that will vary by group, but aside from preference, I think it's clear that the GM need not have total control over the setting.

Setting preferences aside... because I could just as easily say if I built an entire setting with no input from my players and then brought it to them their reply would probably include "Why didn't you involve us in this?"... not much is needed to begin play, and the players can contribute to both the setting and the direction of play.

Correct, at that point it isn't. It's about the adventure itself, and guiding your character through it while succeeding at whatever goal pulled your party there. After you're done, your character will be (one hopes!) both a) much richer and b) more capable at what it does, and can then use those to further its own ends if desired.

The individual-to-character stuff IME mostly comes during downtime, when the party might split up while people do their own thing for a while before reconvening and heading back out into the field.

This is IMO where full-campaign APs and massive dungeons like ToEE really drop the ball: they tend to either strongly discourage or not at all allow for downtime, character interactions with setting, and non-adventuring character development.

I don't expect that this kind of stuff will amount to all that much. Even the way you describe it, it sounds entirely secondary. Stuff that you fit in between the real stuff... the adventures.

That depends on one's approach.

For me, I come up with the setting first; and don't even start talking to prospective players until that setting is complete enough* that I can run something bigger than a few disparate adventures in it. Then, I think to myself who might be interested, and on a one-by-one basis get together with them, lay out the basics of what I have in mind along with system and houserules (or major changes, if they've played with me before), and invite them in. Once enough have accepted, we then all get together (for the first time) for roll-up night, which if things go smoothly rolls nonstop into Session 1.

So with me there isn't really a Session 0. Instead there's a series of what might count as individual Session -1s, followed by roll-up night and Session 1.

No it doesn't depend on one's approach. My comment was that teh D&D team would be wise to formalize the idea of session zero, and that they should advise against GMs and players creating too much on their own before hand. I think this advice is a good idea.

Certainly folks like you or I who have been gaming for decades don't need to be told it's okay to try and one-up Tolkien with the world building. I don't think that's what we should be telling folks who are newer to the hobby, or who want to learn how to GM.

 

[hawkeyefan]

So what's being prioritized?

The bolded in the below.

I always runs campaigns in my home campaign world. There's a lot of freedom to pursue different styles of campaigns depending on timeframe and region, but I'm not reinventing the wheel every time a new campaign starts. I'm just adding more detail to the existing wheel.

In any case, that last paragraph is a lot of why people don't add significant lore. It's a combination of desire, most of my players don't have the desire to add even if they enjoyed that aspect of the game, and the fact that I want the campaign world to be consistent. In addition I want a logical timeline and for all the moving pieces to interact in ways that make sense. At the smaller scale than world building it's about immersion, that a particular PC only influences the world with their direct interactions and decisions.

If players don't want any amount of input on the world or the direction of play, then there's no need to give them any. For me, I am much more immersed in a game when I have more input in its elements and what play is about. But that will vary by preference.

 

[hawkeyefan]

You are not incorrect, probably for the vast majority of D&D players, but I'm suspecting for many of us life-time DMs with long campaigns, the characters are not a minimal segment of the campaign. And this heads towards your second paragraph...

Sure, I've played and GMed plenty of D&D campaigns, and there's certainly a range when it comes to character focus. I don't know if the length of the campaign has anything to do with it as much as the focus of play and how that's determined. There are other factors at play, too, I expect, but I think that's central.

This is quite insightful. It is why we have these endless discussions, because of this variance of play that exists within D&D

I have to echo @Enrahim2's position in that D&D affords me as DM the opportunity to change the style of play from one session to the next and even from one scene to the next should I so wish. That ability to surprise my players - either through the storyline or by giving them more narrative control in situations or through the introduction of a mechanic from another game appeals to me creatively.

And I agree with your sentiment that neither (system) is better than the other, except as they relate to our personal preferences, or those of others.

Well, it depends on which version of D&D. Some are far more specific than 5e in how they're meant to play and what procedures and techniques are to be used.

5e Itself allows for probably the broadest range of playstyles of all the versions of D&D. And for many, this is a feature not a bug. For me, it's increasingly a bug. I also think it is a bug for clear conversation.

This was all with the same characters. Noone needed to learn new rules. Still the feel, style and power dynamics changed from session to session giving unique experiences. This is the kind of things I really struggle to see how to manage with non-traditional rpgs.

In particular I can easily see how I as a DM can encourage and create mini sub system that effectively delegates power to players and restrict myself in similar ways as in a non-traditional RPG, as I have rule-level powers. However I have struggled to see how I could use any of the non-traditional rpgs I know to run a premade adventure if I so would like. The problem is that those rules do not delegate the power to me that is needed to further delegate the required control to the adventure author.

So in conclusion: The main reason I can see for "needing" the level of control D&D grant to DMs are to be able to further delegate that control.

I feel like if we define need in this way, where any and all authority comes from the GM, we're veering into "mother may I" territory.

If there are benefits to not having the GM as the sole authority... if there are ways for the game to be improved by allowing players to have more input... then those should be the expected mode of play. They shouldn't shift.

For example, on my turn in 5e, I should be able to move, take an action, and then also take a bonus action, if I have one that applies. My ability to do this should come from the rules, not the GM. If there is some reason I can't do one of those things on my turn, I should understand why according to the rules.

I think viewing "need" in the way you have here is meant to say that D&D can produce any kind of play, but other games can't do that... but I don't think that's necessary, nor is it true, and it really does push us into the mother may I caricature.

I'm still not sure I buy that the vast majority of D&D players are running through pre-published adventure paths. I'd love to see some information that actually backs up this assumption as my experience outside of my own game just doesn't gel with this assumption (and admittedly I could be wrong) but the vast majority of DM's I've interacted with are doing homebrew world and homebrew adventures or published campaign setting and homebrew adventures... sometimes mixing in a published adventure here or there.

I don't think anyone said anything about how the vast majority of folks play 5e. I would say a significant number of folks clearly do so, and I would point to the sales of the adventure books and the significant number of streamed games you can find on youtube and other places online where people are doing exactly that.

Additionally, I'd suggest that the adventures are a model for many people in how to run a game, and so they influence many folks who create their own settings and adventures.

The adventures are clearly a significant factor in how people play.

 

[gorice]

The thing is making a single Charisma check roll is also the official "rule" via the PHB... it depends on how the DM and table want to handle it... and IMO that's the way it should be. I don't need the in depth rules for every interaction and I don't always want an in depth system to decide a social action. But both are official ways to handle the situation via the books, what the books don't presume to tell me is what is the "appropriate" situation to use them in... and honestly I like it that way.

I think it does, implicitly. The PHB gives examples of situations where you might use a CHA roll, but the DMG 'running the game' section has the actual procedures. Now, I agree that the writers don't necessarily expect you to actually use those procedures, but they are presented as a core part of the rules for DMs to learn.

But if there's no prescription of HOW to do things, at least as farf as 5e is concerned,... why are you assuming this is the default? If anything I would argue that through it's tools, lists, examples, pre-made adventures, etc. D&D is only lots of prep if you want it to be.

This is a whole can of worms, and I've argued about this a lot on this forum in the past, but, in short: 'prep' here includes modules (someone else's prep, essentially); the game makes heavy demands on the DM to reference content (spells, statblocks, NPC descriptions) in play; resolution rolls provide almost nothing in the way of emergent surprises + narrative authority rests very heavily on the DM, which means that DMs have to forceful and skilled improv artists, or lean heavily on prep, if they want interesting things to happen; and official advice, adventure generators, and published modules all lean heavily toward prep and/or railroading.

Giving detailed textual examples of this stuff would take me an entire day, but it's there.

A game that can accommodate all of those styles of play. I get you may not like that answer but it doesn't change the fact that it's a valid answer... perhaps it's the rigid styles that need to be re-examined, especially as to how the majority of ttrpg'ers actually play their games.

But I'm talking about three different systems. They are literally not the same game. Different rules, different books, very different experiences in play. I don't see anything unifying these systems, other than the name 'D&D' and superficial signifiers like d20s & character classes. What's the dividing line between 'D&D' and 'not-D&D', if D&D isn't a set of rules?

 

[AnotherGuy]

5e Itself allows for probably the broadest range of playstyles of all the versions of D&D. And for many, this is a feature not a bug. For me, it's increasingly a bug. I also think it is a bug for clear conversation.

Putting the latter aside, why do you view it as a bug? Is it due to expectations as you prefer narrow focused playstyles?

 

[hawkeyefan]

That is tricky. It is far more simplified in the example @hawkeyefan provided for the game he is participating in.

From you summarised description, I would say the characters in your campaign are subordinate to the adventure, but I admit there are many unknown factors in my basing my opinion some of which are:

• What is the risk of perma death;
• Can the adventure be interrupted to fulfil a character arc;
• Can the adventure be altogether abandoned;
• Is a character permitted to sabotage himself or the adventure for character reasons. i.e. For instance in my current campaign, the cleric was suffering from a crisis of faith (established through the course of play over many sessions) and it so happened that during a rather pivotal part of the story he "sabotaged" his character whereby he had limited usefulness in an encounter with a BBEG (i.e. he had not prayed for his divine spells).

Yeah, the Temple of Elemental Evil game is about the adventure site and the goings on there. Once we resolve the threat (which seems to be to deal with the evil powers that are present in the Temple), the game will be over, and we'll move on to a new campaign with new characters.

Regarding your list, I don't know if I agree with all of them. I think the biggest questions relate to your second and third points... what is play about, how is that brought up in play, and who decides these things? Those seem to be largely related to the idea of control as it pertains to the game.

Why people think the average DM needs to be constrained to a specific set of rules so they don't abuse their poor beleaguered players is beyond me. Even the mediocre DMs were mediocre more because their style just didn't match mine

I don't think that's what it's about. As I said, I'm playing in a 5e game with pretty standard levels of GM authority. I don't think I'm being abused nor am I beleaguered.

But nor am I as free to decide what the game will be about as I am in other games. Constraining GM control and sharing it with players will allow that.

Again, neither is right or wrong. It's just preference. But trying to claim that a game with the kind of "standard" GM control that's been discussed in this thread will allow for as much player freedom... it seems self evidently false to me. I think there's an impulse to say "my game can do that too!!!" without really looking at the pros and cons of each kind of game.

TLDR: In D&D creative expression is given vast scope for the DM, and narrowly constrained for the players. This is not a criticism; typically the DM is the person who wants to do world-building, and many players are very happy to focus on designing their characters and developing their stories.

I think this is pretty accurate! What's standard, or what's preferred seem to be pretty varied. You posed the question of how much control is needed... essentially challenging the standard paradigm of absolute control by the GM. I think that even with a game like D&D 5e where that's largely assumed, the answer is "Not as much control as people may think is necessary or that they prefer".

 

[Enrahim2]

For example, on my turn in 5e, I should be able to move, take an action, and then also take a bonus action, if I have one that applies. My ability to do this should come from the rules, not the GM. If there is some reason I can't do one of those things on my turn, I should understand why according to the rules.

Exactly, as combat mode is one of the key situation the rules of D&D 5ed is not really delegating rule making power to the DM. Rule 0 is technically still in play, but the procedures at work in this mode is so tightly defined by the book that the DM cannot really say anything without coming in direct conflict with explicitely written word. This as opposed to the out of combat mode where the words mostly step out of the rules making, and rather uses suggestive language.

The other key situation i see where the written text actually is opiniated to a point where it is hard for a DM to come with rules assertions for similar reasons is character creation and advancement.

If a classic 1e dungeon crawl, a 5e railroad, and a radically homebrewed game are all 'playing D&D', then 'playing D&D' must mean something other than playing D&D. What kind of thing is that?

I think the above serves as a rough answer to your question. If you allow players to create a character according to the character creation and advancement rules of a D&D edition, and accept to follow the rules it lay out for combat - I would say you are recognizably playing D&D. If you make any modifications to the procedures gouverning any of those two aspects of play, I would say we are looking at a somewhat different game.

 

[hawkeyefan]

Putting the latter aside, why do you view it as a bug? Is it due to expectations as you prefer narrow focused playstyles?

Not necessarily! It's more that I want to know what the style will be when we begin play, and I want it to remain consistent throughout play. I play a variety of gams, so I don't need D&D to be everything and anything. If I'm going to play 5e, I prefer to know how it's going to go.

When my friend suggested running Temple of Elemental Evil, I had a strong idea of what play would be about. Even still, the way he has handled certain things in the game have been different than I likely would have, and I don't know if he was always consistent... but nothing was so drastic as to ruin play for me. Some of this could have been prevented if there were clear procedures for play.

 

[Imaro]

I think it does, implicitly. The PHB gives examples of situations where you might use a CHA roll, but the DMG 'running the game' section has the actual procedures. Now, I agree that the writers don't necessarily expect you to actually use those procedures, but they are presented as a core part of the rules for DMs to learn.

I can't argue what you think. But if you give me two options and examples supporting both options without explicitely telling me the process is A or B... I think looking at it as a choice (especially sense the general rules support this) is exactly what the options are supposed to be.

This is a whole can of worms, and I've argued about this a lot on this forum in the past, but, in short: 'prep' here includes modules (someone else's prep, essentially); the game makes heavy demands on the DM to reference content (spells, statblocks, NPC descriptions) in play; resolution rolls provide almost nothing in the way of emergent surprises + narrative authority rests very heavily on the DM, which means that DMs have to forceful and skilled improv artists, or lean heavily on prep, if they want interesting things to happen; and official advice, adventure generators, and published modules all lean heavily toward prep and/or railroading.

Giving detailed textual examples of this stuff would take me an entire day, but it's there.

All I can say is that I've run off the cuff games of 5e without all this extraordinarily heavy prep being done... and I'd wager I'm not the only one. SO I guess our experiences differ. Just to be clear... because you need something doesn't mean everyone needs it. As I stated earlier I've never run a pre-made adventure, I usually create my own monsters and homebrew my setting and I doesn't take excessive prep... unless I want to spend alot of time on it.

As to the "railroad" comment... plenty of people run sandboxes, hexcrawls and point crawls using 5e that aren't railroads so I'm not sure where this idea is coming from either. Actually I think it touches on something I said before... there is this contingent of non/occasional D&D players who seem to think D&D play is defined by pre-made adventures being run as rigid railroads... when that's not the case. Of course they can continue to believe that and there's nothing I or anyone else can do to dissuade them but I'd suggest if people are saying they run the game differently... perhaps you should believe them.

But I'm talking about three different systems. They are literally not the same game. Different rules, different books, very different experiences in play. I don't see anything unifying these systems, other than the name 'D&D' and superficial signifiers like d20s & character classes. What's the dividing line between 'D&D' and 'not-D&D', if D&D isn't a set of rules?

Could GURPS be used to run a dungeon crawl, a homebrewed game and a railroad adventure? If not why? If yes...but how?