D&D General How much control do DMs need?

[Imaro]

Sure, that's why I'm asking. I think that's at the root of the confusion. The depth and extent of prep and what purpose it serves.

Looking at what Agon does and the way it does it, what would you say is the purpose of that prep? Beyond the basic "facilitates running the game"... more specifically, what does it do, how, and why? How is it different than D&D and why?

Ok so Agon prep...

Island Concept: A name & description : My assumption is used to create specific areas on the island as well as to generate consistent description throughout play.

Signs of the Gods: Select 2 or 3 gods who might have interest on the island and decide on their desires as well as what signs the would use to convey their desires. the leader of the heroes can interpret these signs as concrete actions to gain divine favor.

Design NPC's/monsters: Create 3-5 npc's and/or monsters that embody the overall concept of the island. They should want something concrete that conflicts with those who oppose them. A singular desire with 2-3 qualities. They serve as allies and opponents to the PC's

Create Strife & Trials: ( The core trouble that keeps the island in a state of woe) as well as 3-4 trials (conflicts) that address it's symptoms. This prep serves to create challenges for the PC's and lead to the climactic trial to end the Strife.

Create Mysteries: Highlight a few questions that the trials may raise for the characters that the Strife player (akin to the DM) can answer. These serve as things for the players to discover, thought the answer is a strong hypothesis for the Strife Player. Honestly I think Agon kind of drops the ball in explaining how these mysteries are resolved. on the one hand it suggests they are questions... but on the other hand no procedure for determining their answer is given, and it is implied that ultimately it is decided by the Strife player at some point during play.

Special Rewards: A unique and remarkable reward the heroes might gain from helping the people, defying the gods, overcoming challenges or uncovering mysteries. This serves as a reward, pretty self-explanatory.


So to tell you how I see commonalities in D&D prep... let's look at a basic 5 room dungeon....

Concept: The dungeon will have a general concept that serves the same purpose as that above. In latter editions of D&D the description of the individual rooms might be detailed but it could also be sparse to non-existent in the OSR style.

Signs of the Gods: This prep is unique to Agon play and unnecessary for D&D play due to it's theme... though it could be something interesting to add to D&D campaigns of a certain type. Interpret the signs of the gods and receive inspiration.

Design NPC's/monsters - In general the same purpose as D&D... allies and/or opposition. In the confined space of a 5 room dungeon you'd probably create a similar number though they'd be more detailed (stat blocks for monsters/but not necessarily for NPC's) due to different systems.

Strife and Trials: While Strife isn't something that would need to be prepped for D&D... many do in the form of the climactic battle. This ultimately serves the same purpose as combat, traps, skill challenges, hazards, etc. as D&D. Though usually at a much lower level of granularity than D&D.

Mysteries: Knowledge that the PC's don't have that must be discovered through play... both systems have this. Answer is determined by the DM/Strife player and neither are particularly specific about when the truth of these mysteries has to be determined.

Special Rewards: Exists in both systems... are determined by the DM/Strife player. Very little difference except D&D provides more examples and lists one can choose from.

I honestly don't see the prep for the two games as having this vast gulf of difference outside of their mechanics being different. I guess the island is more nebulous as far as its physicality but you're doing similar prep and just not assigning it a location in Agon... though to be fair there are methodologies in D&D where location is kept vague until actual play takes place like point crawl and random dungeons. I'd be interested to hear your take on it though.

 

[Oofta]

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?

I'm not a game designer. To say that D&D books aren't tools used by millions to build their own worlds and play the game, is some of the more extreme hyperbole I've ever seen on this forum. That's saying a lot.

What, exactly, is an RPG supposed to provide? Other than generic meaningless terms, can you actually explain? Or explain why you continue to post just to trash a game most of us enjoy?

 

[Oofta]

In DW there is no 'map and key' of any kind. I mean, its not excluded as a possibility, but it isn't a specific thing. There are fronts, which include threats, and which are made manifest in play through dooms, which are GM soft moves. So, basically the fronts give you something to say when there's a point in play where the narrative has reached an inflection point and there's a need for something new. They can also serve as a kind of 'news from home' kind of thing where the PCs may be ignoring a front entirely and they would perhaps hear about a doom. It might even have some effect on their situation, though if the players have chosen not to get involved it probably won't rise to the level of a serious problem for them.

There can also be threats that are not really associated with any fronts, those are likely to be located on a map, or simply show up as GM moves when it would be appropriate. That would likely be where any 'keyed' things would be located, but AFAIK this is a very typically small fraction of content. I guess it could loom larger in some games.

For what it's worth, the only map I use for D&D is a high level map I made years ago and a rough map the current campaign runs in. The prep I focus on is Interesting world building, deciding factions, individuals, events and obstacles that make sense that may or my not come up in this (or any) campaign. Most of that is done when I'm trying to get to sleep, it helps me take the focus off the day.

But the real question I'm meandering around to is, what does any of this have to do with D&D and the supposed thread topic? Is there any way to tie it back? If not, carry on and ignore this. This isn't just to you, but to everyone that keeps bringing in other games.

Because to me, it still all goes back to preferences and what we get out of the game. In D&D, as a DM I get to stretch some creative muscles. It lets me imagine the setting for a fantasy story. As a player of a PC I'm running one of the protagonists in that story. I like that those roles are completely different. But it also means that as a DM I don't really care all that much about the growth of the PC or their goals per se. I care about the enjoyment of the players and try to create an interesting world to run around it, hopefully I present plenty of opportunity for them to pursue their goals.

It seems like a lot of games are far more character focused, which is fine. It's not that I don't care about character goals and whatnot, but they are secondary. But just as important, most of my players don't seem to care. I have a hard enough time getting them involved with downtime activities or fleshing out a backstory. I encourage people to speak out if they want to pursue some personal goal for their PC in my session 0 and I don't remember the last time anyone did.

Which is just my rambling way of saying that different games serve different purposes. You aren't "doing it wrong" if you run a more collaborative game, at the same time you aren't "doing it wrong" if the DM maintains final authority of everything but the PC. The latter is what I prefer, same goes for the vast majority of people I play with.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

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.

No, that isn't what I'm wondering about.

I described Dungeon World. Not D&D. The DW descriptions I've given, when rooted in the rules text and abstract discussion thereof, get HUGE pushback. Especially the bit about actually having to follow the rules. But then when concrete description of DW is offered instead, it consistently elicits confusion, of the form, "How is this different from D&D?"

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.

And yet, commonality continues to be relevant. We have design philosophies. We have developers talking to us about what their design goals are. We have public playtests, even if they're mostly publicity stunts. These things would not exist if the question were genuinely unanswerable.

It isn't easy, I certainly grant that. But saying that because it's hard to answer quantum physics questions, it must be that there is no answer to find, is poor reasoning.

Perhaps the reason designers put work into articulating clear principles is because they actually see utility in doing so. For example, trying to forestall arguments likely to occur. (I've been rereading Shadowrun 5e stuff recently and man oh man they really needed to hire better editors for SR5. So many arguments that could have been easily avoided with some slight rewording.) Perhaps they have an artistic vision and want to share it. Perhaps they're exercising intellectual modesty, and not trying to sell the game as supporting more than they have tested it for. Etc.

 

[loverdrive]

One way would be if one conjectured that the tool in question was not suitable or got in the way of successful play. However, this would come down to one's ability to define "successful play" for all cohorts. The impossibility of such a definition presents an insurmountable obstacle to the conclusions the poster is making.

No. Looking at RPGs like it's photoshop is a wrong perspective. RPGs aren't "game engines". They are games.

OK, rule of thumb: is it possible to play system [X] without breaking any rules and still have a bad time? If yes, then it's a badly designed game. The designer didn't do their job, didn't clearly demarcate the fun zone and didn't do anything to prevent the players from leaving it.

 

[Oofta]

No. Looking at RPGs like it's photoshop is a wrong perspective. RPGs aren't "game engines". They are games.

OK, rule of thumb: is it possible to play system [X] without breaking any rules and still have a bad time? If yes, then it's a badly designed game. The designer didn't do their job, didn't clearly demarcate the fun zone and didn't do anything to prevent the players from leaving it.

I can have a really bad time playing checkers. What does that have to do with anything? It's impossible for any game, heck any activity, to be guaranteed fun 100% of the time.

 

[niklinna]

No. Looking at RPGs like it's photoshop is a wrong perspective. RPGs aren't "game engines". They are games.

Well they are supposed to be. Except for Cortex! But as the exception that proves the rule, it's up front about being a toolkit, and about what you need to do to make a game from what it provides.

 

[clearstream]

No. Looking at RPGs like it's photoshop is a wrong perspective. RPGs aren't "game engines". They are games.

OK, rule of thumb: is it possible to play system [X] without breaking any rules and still have a bad time? If yes, then it's a badly designed game. The designer didn't do their job, didn't clearly demarcate the fun zone and didn't do anything to prevent the players from leaving it.

So you mean that your bar for a "well designed game" is that it is impossible to have a bad time if played without breaking any rules? If even one player testified to having a bad time playing Torchbearer 2 then, that would count as a badly designed game?

When we first played Torchbearer 2, half our group had a wonderful time, and half our group had a bad time. I've heard other groups share similar experiences. I count Torchbearer 2 as among the best recent TTRPG designs. So I find it hard to accept your test as a successful razor for good designs.

 

[AnotherGuy]

No. Looking at RPGs like it's photoshop is a wrong perspective. RPGs aren't "game engines". They are games.

OK, rule of thumb: is it possible to play system [X] without breaking any rules and still have a bad time? If yes, then it's a badly designed game. The designer didn't do their job, didn't clearly demarcate the fun zone and didn't do anything to prevent the players from leaving it.

Yes DMing requires some skill to be good at it. Hence good DMs are valued.
I can play hockey and have a bad time.

 

[loverdrive]

Yes DMing requires some skill to be good at it. Hence good DMs are valued.

....because D&D lacks design. If it had some, DMing wouldn't require a skill. It would require just following the rules exactly as they are written, because the designer already did all the thinking for you and forbade bad DMing.