D&D General How much control do DMs need?

[clearstream]

I'm saying you can put DW rules to work (is "operationalize" really needed?) in all the ways D&D rules can be, unless the work you wish to do is widely held to be bad. I don't mean style stuff. I mean (as I said before) "rocks fall, everyone dies." Running the game in bad faith.


Would that not mean truly no one can ever talk about gaming? Because no one can ever know if their D&D is anyone else's D&D, so any useful talk is impossible. Would seem to be a self-defeating claim if so, since it is, of its nature, talking about D&D.


So, again: Does this mean we cannot ever talk about D&D, at all, in any way, at any time? Because the fact this forum is here seems to disprove that claim. Instead, we would have to go with something far weaker, like, "D&D is a bundle of things, and not everyone agrees on everything that is in it, but a majority agrees on most things in it, and for some specific things, nearly everyone agrees."

E.g., D&D is a cooperative game. Sure, you can run it for solo play, but we agree the rules were meant for groups. D&D is a roleplaying game. The DM controls the opposition, and needs to use some kind of "fairness" or the like. The DM has a lot of power, which means they have a burden to use it wisely, or else upset the group.

I could probably go on. It's not like the D&D bundle is some utterly ineffable mystery never to be understood by Mankind.

Dungeon World does get specific with its Principles (and Agendas, which are at a higher level still than Principles; Agendas are why you play at all, Principles are how you play, and Moves are the tools you use to do that.) When you tell people these Agendas, Principles, and Moves, and say "no, Dungeon World does not have a Rule Zero, you are supposed to follow the rules," they almost immediately react very badly. Often with bold assertions about how such a restrictive approach can't possibly produce good play because no system can be complete etc. etc. etc. Yet when you actually walk people through the process of applying the Agendas, following the Principles, and making Moves, it almost always ends with them saying, "That sounds just like D&D," in whatever phrase makes sense.

Hence why it seems like such a nontroversy. Getting one's feathers ruffled over the abstract sound of something, when actually using it is not only unobjectionable, but so familiar it leads to confused questions about how it differs at all.

Well, you were wondering why folk resisted your characterisations of the D&D they were playing. Why they felt that what you were saying didn't apply well to the game they are actually experiencing. One reason might be that D&D-as-played is perfectly isomorphic cohort to cohort and... [fill in the blank]. Another might be that it's not isomorphic cohort to cohort.

And yes, I hold philosophically skeptical views about knowing exactly what TTRPG is played. I say that there are observable differences cohort-to-cohort that are ultimately down to their principles of interpretation. Differences in how they grasp and uphold a common game text. One motive for thinking that is the effort designers of some games put into ruling that out.

 

[clearstream]

Here is the discussion of the 1st session worksheet (p 130 of the original version):

Fill up your 1st session worksheet. List the players’ characters in the center circle. Think of the space around them as a map, but with scarcity and lack instead of cardinal directions. As you name NPCs, place them on the map around the PCs, according to the fundamental scarcity that makes them a threat to the PCs.​

Here are the scarcities: Ambition, Hunger, Thirst, Envy, Ignorance, Despair, Fear, Decay.

That's not a map (the reason one has to be told to "think of it as a map" is because it [i[isn't[/i] a map. It doesn't have a key.

One could say it's a type of "mind map" or visually-arranged catalogue or index.

Then, from pp 132, 137:

[G]o back over it all. Pull it into its pieces. Solidify them into threats, following the rules [for threats and fronts] . . . Take these solid threats and build them up into fronts. Take the things you wonder about and rewrite them as stakes. Add countdowns and custom moves as you need. . . .​

​

To create a front, grab a fronts sheet and:​

• Choose a fundamental scarcity.​

• Create 3 or 4 threats.​

• Write its agenda / dark future.​

• Write 2–4 stakes questions.​

• List the front’s cast.​

• Create the front’s overall countdowns.​

This is prep. It's not drawing and keying maps. It's not creating hidden information that the players aim to learn as part of play: the goal of AW play is not to discover the threats and fronts, nor to defeat the threats and fronts. It has nothing in common with prep that looks like Keep on the Borderlands, or The Sunless Citadel, or Dead Gods, or Expedition to the Demonweb Pits, or (as best I can tell) Curse of Strahd or Storm King's Thunder or like setting guides like The World of Greyhawk.

I'm making a far narrower observation than that.

See the dot on the thing labelled map, that keys to threat #4. It reminds you where threat #4 is likely to matter to your play. Puts it on the table if characters go in that cardinal direction. It's close (inner ring.) It's prepared and thus "prep".

That noted, you probably have in mind a jargon definition for "map-and-key" that I want to respect. You mean maps like that in B2. For sure it is not that kind of map. Not in appearance, nor in purpose. I'm happy to reserve map-and-key for that, although it makes it awkward to talk about this particular game artifact if we can't refer to it as a map. So reciprocally I suggest we accept it as a "map", knowing that we reserve the jargon term for what you've indicated.

 

[Umbran]

Fair enough, but you have to admit that particular campaign set-up is something of a corner case.

"Corner" as in "one of WotC's recently published adventures." I'm running The Wild Beyond the Witchlight.

Being separated from home and family is a common enough trope for D&D, and RPGs in general - lots of players write the details of background out, and lots of GMs gripe about the players not leaving hooks for plots.

Nevertheless, the real point is that here's a world of difference between "my job isn't done unless..." and "I like to have this for my players". The latter is much better positioned as your personal choice, rather than an implication on how others play.

Externalizing it - making it part of the "job", rather than a personal choice - has implications others may not accept, as seen here.

 

[Imaro]

There is not a single map in the whole Agon book.

Here's an island I wrote up a little while ago for @chaochou's "Not the Iron GM" thread:
For anyone who is not familiar with Agon, this write-up is just the same, in layout and style, as the islands in the rulebook. The mysteries are "questions . . . the characters and trials raise . . . to answer in play" (p 137).

I think anyone can read this and see that it is not very much like D&D prep. This is not how D&D setting and adventures are prepared. Here's just one illustration of the difference:

will you listen to Chryse (Arts & Oration to stop the crowd performing the sacrifice), or comfort her (Resolve & Spirit: if she wins, she hurls herself into the sea after her son)​

The situation is not presented with a map (of the cliffs, the temple, etc). Chryse is not statted out with attributes, skills, etc: her traits are Devoted to her son (d8) and Honest (d6). The situation is presented in ethical and moral terms.

Like I posted:
We can even see why there are no lists. Chryse, the Townsfolk, the other NPCs - these are unique individuals used to set up this particular island with its particular ethical and moral questions.

Other islands have their own focus, and hence their own NPCs with their own appropriate traits.

No one is claiming it is the exact same as D&D prep... numerous times throughout this exchange I've said it's pre-prep designed for this system. It would be silly to think that nay rpg has the exact same prep as D&D that's not one of it's editions or offshoots.

But it is prep beforehand, the island writeup serves as a map of sorts (in that it clearly defines what can be found on the island) there is knowledge that the Strife player is privy to that the heroes may or may not learn. You don't seem to have a clear definition of prep (unless it's just D&D prep... which if this is the case you should say as opposed to obfuscating the conversation) as this clearly falls into the realm of pre-game prep and hidden knowledge.

 

[hawkeyefan]

Yes, and that interest is in the party as a whole.

But not in the other individual members? This seems so odd to me.

I could split them up (and were they all to decide to go after their own goals, that's what would probably happen) but it'd mean lots of solo play and visits to the pub.

Well, that's likely because of the way the game plays. D&D isn't strongly suited for split parties. But there are many other games that work just fine that way. I had a campaign where there were three players, and for three sessions in a row, they were all separated and off doing their own thing, and then finally got back together at the end of the third session.

It worked just fine for that game. With D&D, it would have been a struggle.

The risk there is that there'll be a very long gap - as in weeks or months - between roll-up night and puck drop while I design all that, which I wouldn't want and I suspect neither would the players.

So you can just not design all that over weeks or months. Again, that's your preference, but we're talking about what's necessary. You don't need to craft an entire world all at once before play begins. By "you" here, I mean the general you.

Nope - my settings are rather Tolkeinesque that way, and always will be.

That sounds limiting. Why not change it up a bit from time to time?

By the time the players interact with any of this it's too late for that. The player is obviously free to say what their particular PC Dwarf is like, but not Dwarves in general.

Why not? What is lost if you let the player of the dwarf... who likely has the strongest interest in what dwarves are like... decide things about dwarves?

And if any arise I might listen and quietly take notes.

No, that doesn't match my experience at all. In the vast majority of fantasy, space opera, pulp, horror etc etc campaigns, IME PC history, family, birthplace is irrelevant in play, and often a player demanding to bring it up would be seen as violating the table contract. There are exceptions like Game of Thrones & Pendragon, but these are pretty rare. Superheroes would be one genre where family etc does figure quite often.

Yeah, I think we see this all the time in discussions... it's a big part of the whole murder-hobo phenomenon. Solitary wanderers with no roots or connections to the world. A big part of this is the fact that as soon as there is some history or family included, DMs use it as a club to punish the player for it.

I want characters who exist in the world and who therefore are a part of it... with family and friends and enemies and so on. These things should be advantageous as often as disadvantageous... it should just be grist for the mill of play. If it's all negative, then players get conditioned to not want any of it.

TBH I'm not sure what this allergy to prep is about? Draw maps, leave blanks, says about all that needs to be said.

I don't think it's an allergy to prep so much as a question of what work the prep does. How that prep shapes play and either enables players and GMs or limits them.

In my eyes that's either a) in reference to a separately-sold setting, much like some classic adventures reference Greyhawk locations on the assumption you either already own it or will at some point, or b) a straight-up failure on the publisher's part.

If they're going to mention that stuff as part of the pre-gen character write-up then they need to give you some information about it (including at the very least where it is on the map) either in the module or elsewhere, so that if-when the character wants to go there you-as-DM have something to go on.

No, they don't need to give you anything more than what they have. In the case of the pregens, it seems like those elements aren't going to immediately impact the scenario that's being offered for play. A quick summary of a far-off place is all that's needed. If some details come up... if a player decides to introduce a custom from his homeland to try and impress the locals... awesome, go for it! In this case the loose background detail inspires the player during play rather than limiting them during play.

 

[niklinna]

The situation is not presented with a map (of the cliffs, the temple, etc). Chryse is not statted out with attributes, skills, etc: her traits are Devoted to her son (d8) and Honest (d6). The situation is presented in ethical and moral terms.

But how are we going to plan our tactical combat with the townfolk if there are no maps?!

 

[hawkeyefan]

No one is claiming it is the exact same as D&D prep... numerous times throughout this exchange I've said it's pre-prep designed for this system. It would be silly to think that nay rpg has the exact same prep as D&D that's not one of it's editions or offshoots.

But it is prep beforehand, the island writeup serves as a map of sorts (in that it clearly defines what can be found on the island) there is knowledge that the Strife player is privy to that the heroes may or may not learn. You don't seem to have a clear definition of prep (unless it's just D&D prep... which if this is the case you should say as opposed to obfuscating the conversation) as this clearly falls into the realm of pre-game prep and hidden knowledge.

Do you think that prep in Agon serves a different purpose than prep in D&D?

What about other games? Do you think all prep serves the same purpose?

 

[loverdrive]

D&D is a tool. It might not be the ideal tool for you. As you say, 100% of the operationalization of the game text is done by you. That's true of every TTRPG. No exceptions. Some are like a version of Photoshop that includes instructions on how you would best use it. In an ideal sense, such TTRPGs could be seen as a version of Photoshop that won't allow you to draw anything that doesn't fit its designer's conception of art.

The point is: using Photoshop requires less effort than building an image editing software from the ground up.

Preparing a D&D campaign requires more effort than just... designing a game. The designers refuse to do their job and rule over the game with an iron fist, refuse to do all the thinking, and leave the most important work to the GM. You can't play D&D to explore the designers' vision and let someone else do all the thinking for you.

Only your own. At which point, isn't it just better to design your own system, that is grown in a lab to bring forth your vision? The amount of effort is, at worst, comparable. The results will be better. What's the point?

 

[Umbran]

One reason might be that D&D-as-played is perfectly isomorphic cohort to cohort and... [fill in the blank]. Another might be that it's not isomorphic cohort to cohort.

Tangent...

"Isomorphic cohort to cohort"? That's the language you want to use for an internet forum audience?

 

[niklinna]

Tangent...

"Isomorphic cohort to cohort"? That's the language you want to use for an internet forum audience?

It's an entirely new kind of creative agenda...altogether!