D&D General How much control do DMs need?

[Oofta]

Sure, but what does that do about players' ability to become engaged with other players' characters? To care about what happens to them?

What the PCs think or feel is completely up to the players. I ask that the players don't make lone wolves or evil PCs, but beyond that they can do what they want.

Much harder to do this with D&D and similar games than it is with others, for sure.



There's always the risk of contradicting something... we've all done that at times. I don't think the risk is greater when you haven't determined it all ahead of time... in fact, the risk is far lesser.

I have decades of lore. I don't remember the last time I had a major contradiction because I have a written history and notes of the things that may matter. Of course if I did screw up, it's unlikely anyone would notice.

I mean, if the players forget things, then no harm to contradict it, right? The point of whatever detail is to enable play.



Fair enough, but I think it's clear that almost everything you're proposing is your preference, and not what's "needed".

Isn't that what everyone who supports D&D side of thing have said? That the way they run their game is based on preference and what works for them and their group?

Why not let the player decide? If someone later wants to play a dwarf, they know what they're like... they can decide to play one or not. How is this different than if the GM decides? Or, maybe there's more than one type of dwarf, or more than one dwarf culture... again, if you don't commit to this stuff all before play, then you can allow these things to come up in response to the evolving game.

I'm with @Lanefan on this one. I want consistency in the world, there's a history and relationships between the different groups. Group A doesn't trust group B because of what someone from group B did 200 years ago is common in history. It's going to be even more common when some of the members of that society may still be around.

I think murder hoboes tend to not have connections to the world at all. At least, not any that will matter in play. As for the advantages or disadvantages of background... I don't think you need to be so alarmed about abuse. You've never had a character of noble rank? Or from a wealthy family? As I said, any advantages that brings can be paired with a disadvantage so that it's a mixed blessing.

Not just murderhoboes though. Some people are paranoid that the only reason I want them to create a family is so I can kidnap their sibling even though plot hooks involving relatives are quite rare in my campaign. Of course I just tell people that if they don't include a history I'll make it up for them.

Not at all. How does "hot jungles of the south" limit the player more than a specific jungle with specific concepts attached to it?

I'm not talking about an AP type game, necessarily, it was just an example of a game with pre-gens who had minimal world details, as offered by @S'mon ; I don't think your assessment that the designers failed is accurate because either, as you say, those details don't matter to the play offered by that product, or because they leave it up to the group to decide.

Personally I prefer broad outlines with a decent amount of gaps. Even though I've run campaigns in the same world, there's still a lot of gaps. Admittedly a lot of that is because of historical changes i.e. I don't care about city X because it no longer exists. If I get bored with my current campaign world, we can just move the campaign locale or advance the timeline. But it's still the same world, there are still NPCs that show up from previous campaigns (elves live for hundreds of years, some are effectively immortal) and it's kind of a fun callback when that happens. In addition, much of the history of the world is shaped by previous campaigns and previous PCs. So people know they can leave a lasting imprint on the world, even if they're no longer part of that campaign. That sense of history is part of what I, and my players, enjoy.

 

[pemerton]

the island writeup serves as a map of sorts (in that it clearly defines what can be found on the island)

So now any description of things is a map?

By that measure, because when I run MHRP I come up with Scene Distinctions, which can include descriptions of places (eg Dusty Halls or Skies Brooding with Clouds or Neatly Trimmed Hedges), MHRP has a "map".

there is knowledge that the Strife player is privy to that the heroes may or may not learn.

What information in my island write-up might the heroes not learn? How does that fit with the Strife player (ie GM's) job of Revealing the situation on the island?

The Signs of the Gods are narrated at the opening of the session. So is the Arrival, so the players straight away learn about Dares, Chryse and the Townsfolk. The only NPC in the list who does not come into play immediately is Thesela.

In the course of the Trials that reveal the island and lead up to the Battle, Thesela and her cultists in the under-temple, or Dares and his debts will be revealed. When I ran this island, the heroes discovered the under-temple while trying to repair the sewers - at the table, this was my narration (as GM) as part of the process of revealing things.

The principle of Reveal the island is different from D&D as typically played, which has no such principle.

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.

Here is what I posted about Agon (now for the third time):

Another game with no lists of the D&D sort, and for which the prep is very different from D&D (for instance, no maps are prepared) is Agon. Unlike In A Wicked Age there are persistent PCs. But like In A Wicked Age a NPC or creature or inanimate obstacle (eg a mountain or a whirlpool) is mechanically just a dice pool.

In Agon the GM has very great control over where the PCs find themselves and hence what situation confronts them. But almost no control over the outcome of that situation, or what it means for the PCs' quest to return home from the Trojan War, mostly because at no point is that prep reference to establish consequences as it routinely is in D&D.

The prep is obviously very different from D&D. As I posted, no maps are prepared.

The "mysteries" are not pre-answered as pat of prep - they are answered in the course of play.

And there is no use of secret/hidden information to determine whether or not things are certain or uncertain and hence to determine whether or not dice are rolled. If the opponent the heroes face is not worthy, they prevail. If it is worthy, there is a contest. There is no adjudication by reference to a hidden gameboard as is found in typical D&D play. It's this difference of technique that explains the very different form that prep takes.

Here's another way to look at it: could you run an AD&D session on Knossos from my write-up? You would need to stat the NPCs. You would need maps of the temple and the undertemple. You would probably need a map of the cliff and surrounding area for the arrival.

Then you would hit the following sorts of problems: in AD&D there is no canonical way of determining whether the PCs comfort Chryse such that she doesn't hurl herself into the sea. There is no such thing as a "strife level" which can escalate if the PCs don't stop the storm.

And in AD&D the PCs can use a Commune spell (or similar) to ask the gods the meaning of their signs, or the answers to the mysteries. So the GM would need to think about what these mean and be ready to provide those answers, which presumably would then guide the players' declarations of action for their PCs.

These are some of the ways in which prepping for Agon and prepping for typical D&D are very different things.

 

[pemerton]

I'm making a far narrower observation than that.

And I'm making the point that preparing threats and fronts in the version of AW that I own does not involve making maps.

 

[pemerton]

Yeah there's definitely some confusion going on and I think it's because you use pre-prep as synonymous with D&D prep

In which post?

None of them.

I mean, in the post that this is a reply to, you replied to my post which included this - that I now post for the third time:

Apart from the bare fact of being GM prep, there is almost nothing in common between prepping in AW and prepping in (say) Moldvay Basic. No maps. No "hidden board". No ways to render action outcomes certain or uncertain such that dice don't or do need to be rolled.

So if you read the bold as meaning "there is no prep" that's your problem. Personally, I don't think it's very ambiguous.

 

[pemerton]

It facilitates running the game... Of course there are different games with different goals and different experiences... this isn't being disputed by myself or anyone else. This conversation is arising because of a confusing usage of prep and stating that some games don't have it before the game starts.

I said that Wuthering Heights and In A Wicked Age don't have prep before the game starts. No one has contradicted that claim.

I said that AW prep has nothing in common with D&D prep beyond the bare fact that it is prep. And pointed out that in the version of the AW rules I own and am referring to - which is the original version, that made the game famous (to the extent that a RPG can be famous) - there are no maps, no keys.

And I said much the same about Agon. You assert that Agon involves maps. It doesn't. You assert that the purpose of Agon prep is to provide material for the players to learn by way of exploration - but in fact the game rules instruct the GM to reveal that stuff so as to push towards conflict.

Does anyone doubt that prep by the GM serves the purpose of facilitating the GMing of the game? I mean, why else would you do it? Dealing cards facilitates the play of bridge. Printing gameboards facilitates the play of Monopoly. These are all truisms that seem to have no bearing on the different ways in which RPGs can be played, and the ways in which those different approaches relate to GM control.

 

[pemerton]

I just got Forbidden Lands RPG in the post. It actually seems to be intended as a complete game, not just a game engine. Which I find rather disconcerting - perhaps showing how unusual this is. Most RPGs don't look like games, they look like instruction manuals for making a game.

If you've never looked at Agon 2nd ed I highly recommend it. The production values are great, the prose clear and mostly crisp, and the instructions unequivocal.

I don't find it disconcerting, but I agree that it does stand out from many RPGs. Prince Valiant is another example, though probably not quite as tight as Agon in its presentation.

As you know, I also tend to find 4e D&D much closer to "complete" than many other RPGs. But that one might be more contentious!

 

[pemerton]

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.

<snip>

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.

I disagree that Mysteries are not hidden. They are specifically things the players don't know the answers to at the beginning of play.

To touch on Mysteries, I don't think it's that vague at all. They're meant to be answered in play. These are questions prompted by the characters and location... so they come about as a result of the mix of elements for a given island. It may be "why is the priest of Hera turning her back on the people?" or similar. The Strife Player is recommended to offer a partial answer, but to then let play determine the truth. The players can either confirm the hypothesis of the Strife Player, or reject it for their own. This is all stated on page 137. Then the example islands have some Mysteries, which you can see are just leading questions to determine in play.

hawkeyefan posted the rules text for mysteries:

From Page 137 of the physical book:

MYSTERIES
What questions do the characters and trials raise? Highlight a few for the Strife Player to answer in play. In an island write-up, we call these questions mysteries.

A good mystery is a loaded question. Include a partial answer with the question, and ask if maybe it's true. Infuse the questions with a strong point of view to help the Strife Player form their own thoughts- either supporting your hypothesis or rejecting it with it's easier to customize when you have something to work with.

So in D&D, the typical way of posing a mystery is this: the GM decides in advance what the answer is; during the course of play the players declare actions which - given the way those actions affect elements of the fiction (eg looking at things, looking for things, talking to NPCs, etc) - prompt the GM to announce more of the fiction. The players put together those bits of fiction to ascertain the answer to the mystery.

In Agon, the GM (Strife Player) answers the mysteries in play. In other words, prep for Agon does not include answering the mysteries. If we then ask How does the Strife Player answer them in play, p 73 tell us:

Describe the outcome of a contest by resolving what was at stake. Something as about to happen before the contest - how did that turn out? . . . As the Strife Player, it's your job to make the outcome final then move on to the next thing.​

A good island design, therefore, needs to integrate the following things:

* The Signs of the Gods;

* The characters and their traits;

* The trials and battle, including the threats the battle poses;

* The mysteries.​

Which goes back to my point upthread that the whole orientation of prep in Agon is towards the ethical and moral weight of the situation. As long as you keep your eyes on that, achieving the integration that I've described is not going to be too hard.

@hawkeyefan suggested that In A Wicked Age is an inspiration for Agon, but speaking just for myself, and not knowing anything about what John Harper has said on this point, to me it looks more like Dogs in the Vineyard. DitV also emphasises an approach to prep (of towns rather than islands) which involves revealing the situation in play via both signs and characters, with an emphasis on ethical and moral weight.

 

[pemerton]

What the PCs think or feel is completely up to the players. I ask that the players don't make lone wolves or evil PCs, but beyond that they can do what they want.

@hawkeyefan didn't ask about the PCs relationships to one another. He said this:

Sure, but what does that do about players' ability to become engaged with other players' characters? To care about what happens to them?

That is, he was talking about the attitude of the players to one another's PCs.

In my current BW game Aedhros's attitude to Alicia is little better than contempt. But I, the player of Aedhros, am very engaged with Alicia and care about what happens to her.

 

[pemerton]

How does that not immediately put the Strife player in violation of Czege, though? The Strife player is told to ask the question/pose the problem and then to help answer/solve it.

So Google provided me with this handy statement of the Czege principle:

It isn't fun for a single player to control both a character's adversity and the resolution of that adversity.​

And guess what - in Agon the Strife player doesn't get to control both the posing of the mysteries and the resolution of them. As I posted not far upthread, the mysteries are answered via the outcomes to contests. And these are not something that the Strife player controls.

(Also, in case it's not clear: in Agon the Strife Player is the GM.)

 

[Oofta]

@hawkeyefan didn't ask about the PCs relationships to one another. He said this:

That is, he was talking about the attitude of the players to one another's PCs.

In my current BW game Aedhros's attitude to Alicia is little better than contempt. But I, the player of Aedhros, am very engaged with Alicia and care about what happens to her.

He didn't ask about the relationships between PCs ... just the way the PCs relate to each other? Either I'm missing the point or those are the same things.