D&D General How much control do DMs need?

[loverdrive]

No it isn't. In fact this, "Cool, I still have to do all the work myself, but now I also need to learn how this new system works..." is a statement that completely contradicts itself. If you are doing all the work yourself, there is no system, new or otherwise, to learn! If you are spending a lot of time learning a new system, then the system is going to be doing the vast majority of the work for you.

...no? If I decide to switch from Photoshop to Procreate, I'll have to learn a whole new app, it's UI, shortcuts, quirks, tricks and weird bugs. Photoshop is still not doing "the vast majority of the work" for me.

The only difference is that Photoshop is a very complex piece of software that required miracles of engineering to be built.

 

[Oofta]

Yeah, that’s what I’m saying. If the DM is gonna give up some authority to the players, those are constraints. If we accept that it’s standard for the DM to be in charge of creating the setting… which the “master of worlds” section of the DMG and many responses here indicate.

Constraints aren’t a bad thing at all. I find it a lot of fun to GM with constraints in place.

I guess I don't consider players authorial freedom is necessarily the same as giving up authority. There's a lot of options there. For example, the DM could give everyone an area, region or organization to create but then once the campaign actually starts the DM has full control over whatever the players created. I do this quite frequently with PC's families and people introduced in their backstories. I may ask for details on the PC's perception of the NPC, but I maintain control of them so that even the player that created them can enjoy interacting (instead of controlling) those NPCs.

Of course you can always go to the extent of changing who sits in the DM's chair (which I've done) and many other options between. Not sure it matters what terms you throw at it. If you want to call it "constraints" on the DM so be it, but there are a lot of options.

 

[Clint_L]

I think you're describing a situation where you as GM have delegated certain powers, not one where you don't have power.

I generally delegate where I think it aids immersion rather than detracts. Eg a PC ought to know their own backstory, friends & family etc, so I think players should have a good amount of power to determine those elements. That's different from mutual story creation/storygaming.

No, that’s not what I’m describing. Players are directly contributing to plot and world building as the game unfolds. For example, in the game described, I did not determine the BBEG. A player did.

 

[Oofta]

No, that’s not what I’m describing. Players are directly contributing to plot and world building as the game unfolds. For example, in the game described, I did not determine the BBEG. A player did.

You mean you never did that before when you listened in and paid attention to what the players were speculating about what was really going on? Decide that it was far more interesting if Joe the bartender was really the power behind Krang the Conqueror because the players were discussing it? I thought they taught that in the DM 101 course!

 

[Clint_L]

You mean you never did that before when you listened in and paid attention to what the players were speculating about what was really going on? Decide that it was far more interesting if Joe the bartender was really the power behind Krang the Conqueror because the players were discussing it? I thought they taught that in the DM 101 course!

That’s not what I am describing. The major plot points of the session were determined by players who had as much control as I did. I didn’t even describe the BBEG.

 

[Snarf Zagyg]

Maybe another way to put this is to distinguish between game as artifact and game as played. For every TTRPG (no exceptions) 100% of the work to go from game as artifact to game as played is done by the players (or DM and players, if you don't count DM as a player.)

This goes to the issue of second-order design, which is a subject I have touched on before.

The problem with most of these conversations, again, is that there are those who focus very strongly on the design of the rules of the system. Of course, as games are emergent in play, the designer doesn't know how the game will actually play.

For various reasons, some games have tried very hard to to mandate the player behavior in games, which has certain benefits. On the other hand, D&D has for various reasons (through history, through culture, and so on) been very hesitant about tackling the second-order design problem.

Put another way, you might have game X. In game X, the designers have thought very carefully about the second-order design issue and have designed the rules and underlying system components as much as possible to dictate the experience. On the other hand, you have D&D, which basically looks at the second-order design issue and gives a big shrug.

To use an analogy (uh oh), game X would be going to a restaurant and ordering Omakasse, while D&D would be choosing a restaurant ... an eclectic one ... with a big menu. Hmmm.... you know, if only there was a restaurant that would complete this analogy!

 

[hawkeyefan]

Just for avoidance of doubt, you don't rule out that there can be constraints in place even where DM gives up none of their otherwise traditional-mode authority to players?

In which version of D&D? I think that the DM is constrained much more in some editions of the game than others. Or at least, is meant to be with the game as written.

If you mean 5e, then it's difficult to answer because the authority of the DM is never explicitly stated... but there are a lot of statements that indicate that they have total authority over the world, the rules, and the adventures. If we take those to be accurate, then the answer is no, any constraints on the DM removes some amount of their authority. It may not always be given to players... sometimes it may be given to the dice or may just be removed... but it's always a reduction in DM authority.

I guess I don't consider players authorial freedom is necessarily the same as giving up authority. There's a lot of options there. For example, the DM could give everyone an area, region or organization to create but then once the campaign actually starts the DM has full control over whatever the players created.

Take a look at what you just said here. "The DM is not giving up anything, he's just giving an area, region, or organization..."

I do this quite frequently with PC's families and people introduced in their backstories. I may ask for details on the PC's perception of the NPC, but I maintain control of them so that even the player that created them can enjoy interacting (instead of controlling) those NPCs.

Of course you can always go to the extent of changing who sits in the DM's chair (which I've done) and many other options between. Not sure it matters what terms you throw at it. If you want to call it "constraints" on the DM so be it, but there are a lot of options.

Right, but you're always talking about voluntary or optional things. All of this depends on what the DM chooses to do or allow. Those aren't constraints, those are options.

Constraints are binding. Think of rules that we normally accept... the goblin has an AC of 15, and I've rolled a 19 to hit... I hit. The DM is constrained to acknowledge this. If I cast magic missile, it works as described in the spell description. If I have the Sentinel feat, and I hit an opponent with my opportunity attack, it loses its remaining movement.

These are (barring any rule zero bunk) constraints on the DM's authority. This is where the rules tell us what happens, not the DM.

There aren't really any clear constraints on the DM when it comes to authoring the fiction of the game. Yes, many DMs will typically allow a certain amount of leeway during character creation, but that's not always the case. I could say I want to be a member of the Elk Tribe, and you might then say "whoa, whoa there is no Elk Tribe... only the Bear Tribe and the Wolf Tribe exist in my world... pick one of those" and be perfectly within what many consider your authority as DM.

It's that "right to edit" you're always mentioning.

 

[Snarf Zagyg]

That’s not what I am describing. The major plot points of the session were determined by players who had as much control as I did. I didn’t even describe the BBEG.

Since I never bothered addressing the original question you asked in the OP, I will do it this way.

First, you can always formalize or gamify the issue of player control of the narrative- even though it's underdeveloped, that's what the Plot Points section of the DMG is about.

Second, you can determine (through discussion and consent) what areas of the game are appropriate for player authority over the narrative. Almost all D&D games allow for some- even if it's just backgrounds of the PCs. But it's helpful to discuss what areas, if any, might be off-limits for players to narrate or otherwise author the fiction.

Third, it's good to pay attention to table dynamics. There is a reason that many players prefer D&D to other games. Put bluntly, these players don't want to have control over the narrative. Make sure that you don't have those players, because they might end up resenting players who are authoring the narrative- in a way, skillful and creative authority wielded by a player can become an extra ability, and if the table isn't "all-in," that can cause issues.

Finally, if you really enjoyed the experience, and your table did, I would highly recommend trying a game that was built-up from the bottom to feature this type of collaboration. As I have said before, I love D&D because it does a lot of things, but it doesn't do most of them well. There are a number of other TTRPGs out there that put this front and center! I would try to get the table to do those, even one-shots as breaks from the regular D&D sessions, just to see how the dynamic plays out in a game that was designed to feature that type of collaborative authority over the narrative.

 

[Oofta]

That’s not what I am describing. The major plot points of the session were determined by players who had as much control as I did. I didn’t even describe the BBEG.

Gee, here I thought the wink face was enough to let you know that it was just a joke.

 

[Maxperson]

...no? If I decide to switch from Photoshop to Procreate, I'll have to learn a whole new app, it's UI, shortcuts, quirks, tricks and weird bugs. Photoshop is still not doing "the vast majority of the work" for me.

Yes it is doing the vast majority of the work for you, or do you expect me to believe that you are programming it to merge two photographs together, or going in and manually moving every pixel yourself. You are probably doing less than 100th of what is happening with the program.

The only difference is that Photoshop is a very complex piece of software that required miracles of engineering to be built.

And that engineering is doing the vast majority of the work, not you.