D&D General How much control do DMs need?

[hawkeyefan]

I thought it was the correct term and better than nerd-speak. But as always, thanks for the ever-so-helpful explanation of how to properly use terminology.

Not even a twinge of irony here, eh?

 

[Enrahim2]

Things that I note about most versions of D&D that make me dispute its relative flexibility: being designed for party play, it struggles with non-party play; relying heavily on rather granular resolution (both space and time), it can struggle with non-party play, with deliberate scene-framing (4e famously made some changes to handle this), etc; from the point of view of pacing and "story", it has no canonical system for dialling consequences up or down based on narrative weight or context, nor for zooming in our out based on narrative weight or context.

These are features of a system that are highly salient in RPGing, given their importance to the setting-character-situation relationship. There are plenty of RPGs that easily handle these issues. The fact that D&D doesn't easily handle them is a mark against its relative flexibility.

That is sort of where our conversation go in circles. It is fully true that D&D not only do not handle these easily. It actually do not handle it at all. The reason is that it trough rule 0 hands the reins to the DM to handle those. And I can say that I as a DM can handle all of those with more ease by winging it in real time rather than having to follow some structure design by someone else (I consider that one of my few talents as a DM)

I can however accept that there might be DMs out there that would indeed struggle massively with this.

In other words, it is not realy possible to reason about ease of flexing D&D without taling the DM into account. This is because D&D by design leaves these responsibilities to the DM. Hence I don't think the "easily" criterion can really be used when trying to compare the flexibility of D&D (where the system is hands off in these questions) with the flexibility of systems where the system indeed is making an effort to handle these things.

Hence my previous post about how we need to settle on a "level of acceptance" for what rule 0 allows us with regard to flexibility if we can meaningfully compare a system designed with rule 0 in mind with a system designed to "avoid" rule zero.

 

[Oofta]

There are lots of ways to handle it, depending on the game. Granting a benefit of some kind when the background would apply is a pretty common method. If it’s not defined specifically, it can lead to inconsistence, though.



What about the specific abilities granted by the 5e backgrounds? Criminal, Folk Hero, and Noble all define how they can be used. Do you allow those abilities to be used?

In past discussions on this topic, many folks have said they don’t allow them to work as described, or don’t allow it all the time. Usually the reason for this is either it makes things too gamey or it makes social interactions too easy to resolve.

Honestly, I prefer there were more of these types of abilities. Either within the umbrella of background (perhaps progressing by level) or with the classes, offering all classes some measure of ability in pillars other than combat.

Well, let's take the example of the noble background. The background could be helpful or harmful in social situations depending on the circumstance. The fluff side of things I have no problem with - by dint of their noble background they have more luxurious accommodations than they normally would and using the option to have retainers. However, those retainers are just that, a butler, maid, chef or squire. I've seen a player push that definition to make the servants into full-blown sidekicks that went on adventures with the group, effectively giving them multiple PCs when no one else did. It violates my preference of "minor situational benefit and fluff" that typically doesn't have an impact on combat.

I don't always use, or remember backgrounds, it's something I want to give more thought to in our next campaign now that I have a stable group again (we moved). I have added an NPC as a person's criminal contact for example. I'm just not always sure how to make it really matter. If someone has the folk hero background, that's kind of cool at lower levels. You did something awesome* and now people look up to you. But after a few levels, in many cases the entire group will have the same level of adoration.

So I want to give people benefits, sadly I regularly forget but want to get better at it. On the other hand, it rarely comes up in most games. A useful concept but one the group needs to decide to run with in order for it to matter.

*My favorite twist on the folk hero is that the PC didn't really do anything awesome, they just happened to be the first person on the scene after the bad guys had some sort of catastrophic failure or it's just a case of mistaken identity. Maybe that's just my own imposter syndrome peeking through.

 

[Oofta]

Not even a twinge of irony here, eh?

I try to be helpful in my responses if someone is just factually incorrect. Maybe I don't always succeed.

 

[clearstream]

If we are speaking about individual, highly specific situations, yes, exactly this result comes out. But is that relevant for TTRPGs?

To focus on one feature of D&D, when you're shopping for TTRPGs to use as toolkits, a well-featured skirmish-scale fantasy combat with an action-economy sometimes matters.

That said, an issue with the analogy is that each tool really does only one physical thing: hitting stuff, twisting fasteners, cutting through materials, twisting other kinds of fasteners, etc., and the end-user cannot meaningfully change this without going out and buying more tools. In theory you can use your tools to make better or more specific tools, that's how new tools came to be in the first place, but it's an enormous amount of work. Not so for TTRPG stuff. Even for 3e, (in)famous for trying to have prodigious discrete rules, many rules cover multiple kinds of situations. It becomes quite possible to build a reasonably comprehensive set of rules-tools, and to make a tool that sweetly and simply creates new tools. (Or...less sweetly and simply.)

I would say no—because it doesn't do anything at all. To again borrow your toolbox analogy, that's like saying that box C which contains nothing whatsoever is more flexible than either of the boxes provided, which is ridiculous.

Yet one reads FKR-aficinado blogs speaking excitedly of being able to do anything they want. Invisible rulebooks, tactical infinity and all that.

It's counter-intuitive, possibly, but not ridiculous. My analogy falls apart because it's picturing physical tools rather than language and meaning tools. Elsewhere I've outlined how TTRPG rules as tools fabricate the mechanism that is the game as played. That's how we get from game-as-artifact to game-as-played. As the invisible rulebooks concept implies, we've all got a store of rules for fabricating that mechanism already on hand. We don't necessarily need them written down. (Where do designers get them from before they're written down, one might otherwise ask?)

Surely not. Several people in this very thread have talked about re-applying the existing rules, without change, to situations other than the ones intended. E.g. Fate's Aspects have been brought up as flexible. I myself have cited DW and 4e as containing flexible structures, not because you can rewrite them, but because an individual tool or set of tools is capable of covering a plethora of situations. "Defy Danger" is the most commonly-used move in Dungeon World specifically because it is supremely flexible. Skill Challenges are flexible, able to apply to a huge swathe of relevant situations. 13A Montages. Etc.

I'm still at - it's not a consideration (plus or minus) in judging flexibility whether the game text requires folk to do some flexing.

 

[Bedrockgames]

There are lots of ways to handle it, depending on the game. Granting a benefit of some kind when the background would apply is a pretty common method. If it’s not defined specifically, it can lead to inconsistence, though.

Inconsistency is definitely something that can happen with an approach that is more open and not defined (for example a game that says backgrounds give this or that specific ability or bonus, that is going to be consistent). Where I think less defined can work well, if people are comfortable with the approach is allowing for a more fluid application of the character's history to be applied to situations (maybe in one circumstance a +1 bonus makes sense, maybe in another a damage die bonus or an ability to understand a particularly complex document, or perhaps an ability to simply follow all the rules of etiquette at a particular occasion without make a roll). The older I get the more I enjoy a more open and fluid approach to this stuff, but I can also enjoy games where the rules or the spirit is one more of consistency (3E was a very RAW type game but if you engage that it can be rewarding---but frustrating if you don't realize that is what is going on).

 

[EzekielRaiden]

To focus on one feature of D&D, when you're shopping for TTRPGs to use as toolkits, a well-featured skirmish-scale fantasy combat with an action-economy sometimes matters.

And someone new to RPGs would know these features how, exactly? This is one of the biggest blind-spots for a lot of D&D players, counting myself for ages and ages. D&D is the biggest, mostly because it was the first and everyone else played catch-up thereafter, but "skirmish-scale fantasy combat with an action economy" is incredibly specific. Someone looking to get into the hobby will know at best two of those words ("fantasy" and "combat.") And, as we're seeing with the rise of video games like Minecraft and Portal and the plethora of visual novels, a game does not need to have any combat or action economy or anything like that in order to be fantastically successful (nor, for that matter, did prior ultra-successful games like Myst, one of the best-selling games of all time.)

Yet one reads FKR-aficinado blogs speaking excitedly of being able to do anything they want. Invisible rulebooks, tactical infinity and all that.

And yet, as has been brought up in this thread (IIRC by @AbdulAlhazred?) the only way you can make actual Free Kriegsspiel work is by having referees who, in effect, already are living rulebooks. The rules still matter, they are just internalized by a person; they translate the freeform-stated intent of a player into something productive. Throwing the rulebook out entirely and just making literally everything up as you go is not only not FK, it's actively against what FK was doing, which was teaching young officers. You can't teach something empty of content! (Well, I mean, you can waste time doing so, but no productive learning will come of it, and productive learning was the whole point of FK.)

It's counter-intuitive, possibly, but not ridiculous. My analogy falls apart because it's picturing physical tools rather than language and meaning tools.

Which was part of my criticism, yes.

Elsewhere I've outlined how TTRPG rules as tools fabricate the mechanism that is the game as played. That's how we get from game-as-artifact to game-as-played. As the invisible rulebooks concept implies, we've all got a store of rules for fabricating that mechanism already on hand. We don't necessarily need them written down. (Where do designers get them from before they're written down, one might otherwise ask?)

Sure. Just as you can tell someone, "Because all the rules of writing are about writing better, chuck 'em! Ignore every single one, whenever you want, as often as you want. Because better writing is the point, so just write better."

Except that that is, demonstrably, extremely ineffective. Which was the point. Rules, even ones with the inherent disclaimer "the purpose of this rule is to make things better, so if obeying it makes things worse, don't do that," are almost always rules for a reason. Chesterton's Fence applies quite strongly here. You're chucking the fence because you say, "Well, I don't see how this is necessary for success, therefore it must go." But that isn't a useful thing to do. It's often very counter-productive. Instead, better to ask, "In what ways does this support success? What am I giving up without it?"

And the answer, a lot of the time, is...looping back to stuff we discussed earlier. Theoretical absolute latitude, whichever side of the screen, limited by an awful lot of practical issues and problems. Or, you accept some tested (and that's critical--by definition you can't test an invisible rulebook) restrictions on your theoretical latitude, and in so doing, achieve reams more practical latitude. And for those who have not so much "tested" their invisible rulebook as subconsciously tweaked it over time in response to "problem" situations (I can't think of a milder phrase, but I mean that very mildly), lo and behold, you quite often find that the ad-hoc, invisible, unstated, tacit, implicit, inaccessible rules end up being...rather shockingly similar to the formally-stated ones, except the latter can be learned and communicated, while the former are trapped within each person's thinkmeats.

I'm still at - it's not a consideration (plus or minus) in judging flexibility whether the game text requires folk to do some flexing.

I'm afraid I don't get what you mean.

 

[jurrubin]

Traditionally, the Dungeon Master assumes god-like powers in a game of D&D. They are the omniscient narrator with power over everything but character choices. They build and tell the story, they populate worlds, they interpret rules. They even have the power to set aside rules and rolls, at their discretion (this is a whole other thread). But lately I've been questioning how necessary this power dynamic is.

I recently ran a session of my 5e campaign using modified Fiasco rules, meaning that the game took place as a series of scenes, and each player, including me, was a co-equal narrator - one person either started or finished a scene, taking turns, and the rest did the opposite. I had some control in that I set up the original scenario and put locations, objects and NPCs into play before the game started, but during play the plot was wide open - it was a mystery and I didn't know who did or why any better than the other players. We worked it out together through the course of the game. It was fun!

I also encourage players to improvise plot details that they want for their character, trusting that they too have the best interest of the game at heart. Lately, I have told them that they can add not just suggestions but major plot points, only requesting that they give me time to prepare if the plot point will involve having to create a dungeon or something (a lot of things we can improvise on the fly).

I'm finding that the more control I give up, the more fun I am having at my games. And it is making me suspect that centralizing power in the DM is not as necessary as the rules presuppose. Depending on the group.

"Traditionally, the Dungeon Master assumes god-like powers in a game of D&D. They are the omniscient narrator with power over everything but character choices."

Speaking as someone who has been DMing D&D since 1978..wrong. The DM does NOT have "power over everything"; the DM has control only over the creation of the foundation of an adventure. The DM is similar to the host of a party offering a period of entertainment to other people who can respond in such a way as to make that time period entertaining for the DM.

"They build and tell the story..."
Again, wrong. The players build and tell the story. The DM builds the story foundation which then provides an environment for the actions of the characters of the story.

"They even have the power to set aside rules and rolls, at their discretion..."
Once more, wrong. The DM, as game referee, is obligated to inform the players when the DM wishes to alter the published rules the players are using. Only if the players agree to the proposed changes can the DM set aside rules and rolls. Or the players will just set the DM aside.

People who DM as if they have god-like powers are simply playing the game incorrectly and, frankly, selfishly. As you've found out, not being a narcissistic dictator but allowing players to contribute meaningfully in major ways to a campaign greatly increases the DM's enjoyment of the game as well as that of the players. One of my best campaigns occurred when I told the players I had build a calendar of events for my world which would automatically occur unless the characters influence them otherwise, and that their characters could literally do anything they wanted to in the world as long as the players understood their characters' actions would always have consequences, just like in real life. Then I ran my NPCs as if they were my PCs with each having a general list of personal ethics that would help me guide their behavior. If things go badly for an NPC, that's just too bad for the NPC even if it would dramatically change the campaign. Very soon, the campaign world took on a life of its own, not just for the players but for me too.

It was amazing! This is how I run all my campaigns and one-shots.

 

[Bedrockgames]

Can "rulings" be considered flexibility though? That's what a number of folks are pushing back on.

I find rulings to be the most flexible way to play RPGs for me personally. I am sure others find them not so, or feel it puts too much control in GM hands (and therefore it is very one sided flexibility). I don't think this is something that necessarily has an objective answer. It partly depends on your personality and what you want a system to do for you.

If a system relies heavily on rulings to achieve this, it would seem to suffer a serious dilemma: either they aren't design, meaning they're not actually part of the system and don't seem to be part of the system being flexible, or they are design, at which point the system is asking you to be armchair designer to play it and that bespeaks of inflexibility.

If it is just 'rulings over rules in spirit' it can be just like any other game. Though some types of rules will interfere with rulings over rules, so that will impact things. If the game is designed with rulings over rules in mind, as a lot of OSR games are, as some of my own games are (to be clear not d20 or OSR systems), then you are asking the GM to make rulings. I don't think that means they are designing a system from the ground up (you aren't expecting them to take notes and apply the same exact rulings over time----though you might expect certain well received rulings will naturally linger in a group). Again this comes down to personality. I like taking rules in a system and applying them in creative ways to fit what the players are trying to do. Some people feel that interferes with the player's ability to predict the probability of their actions, leads to inconsistent rulings, and, as you point out, leads to the GM having to do some design work. I would quibble with the latter, but I do see part of the appeal of GMing is liking how mechanics can be adapted on the fly.

A design goal of pretty much every edition of D&D—except 4e and 5e, albeit for dramatically different reasons—has been to have some kind of rule for most situations. In early editions, this is what led to the profusion of idiosyncratic, bespoke subsystems that often did similar things in supremely different ways, and was infamously byzantine as a result. (Gygax's poor organization didn't help matters.) 2e continued this, being probably the smallest jump in mechanics between editions. 3e did too, but cleaned house, and this made it obvious what its design ethos required. It wasn't any more or less about having rules for a zillion situational details, it just tried to be consistent and systematic about it.

I would argue 3E didn't. In large part because it was being consistent and systematic. At the very least, the culture of play around 3E was not friendly to a rulings over rules approach. I found in most 3E groups I played in and GM'd for, a GM either changing rules to fit a situation or coming up with new ones, was frowned upon (and the expectation was to find the rule that fit and apply it, even if a particular corner case made less sense). But I do think most editions of D&D strive for this. Some do it better than others (I think the simpler versions work best, like B/X, and personally I like using 2E that way because that was the edition I started GMing on and it is very easy for me to hack the ins and outs of the system).

4e diverged by aiming for a bottom-up rather than top-down rule hierarchy ("exception-based design") and including what I call "extensible framework rules" (which cover classes or categories of situations, rather than solely aiming to produce a critical mass of discrete rules.) 5e diverged by openly disclaiming design in several places.

I can't speak much on 5E except that I think it appeared to be a compromise to being new and older players back to system. It seems to have worked. But I don't know what its overarching design philosophy is (I know I saw a lot of things that instantly made sense to me as a more old school minded player in a lot of their design discussions)

 

[EzekielRaiden]

Speaking as someone who has been DMing D&D since 1978..wrong. The DM does NOT have "power over everything"; the DM has control only over the creation of the foundation of an adventure. The DM is similar to the host of a party offering a period of entertainment to other people who can respond in such a way as to make that time period entertaining for the DM.

Best of luck arguing that around here. We have at least one person (and probably several) who will gladly tell you that they have, and exercise, "absolute power" at the table. And I use those quotes very intentionally. Unrelenting insistence on the phrase "absolute power," no caveats--and if players didn't care for that, they may vote with their feet.

I can't speak much on 5E except that I think it appeared to be a compromise to being new and older players back to system. It seems to have worked. But I don't know what its overarching design philosophy is (I know I saw a lot of things that instantly made sense to me as a more old school minded player in a lot of their design discussions)

The only design philosophy in 5e is, "Do what we can spin as being traditional." Even when those "traditions" were invented no more than 15 years before. Numerous systems within it do not actually engage well with the described intent of play, and its "playtest" period was so fraught in large part because, lacking an actual design philosophy, its makers were easily blindsided.* There was a similar issue with 3e, where it was designed with the false assumption that everyone would play it exactly the same as 2e, without considering the ways the rules had changed, and that blind spot is what gave us "CoDzilla" and "God Wizards" and such.

That's why we had things like Monte Cook absolutely earnestly saying, "what about what I like to call 'passive perception?'" even though that concept was invented by 4e (and, in turn, the idea of "passive" checks was just a generalization of the earlier "Take 10" rules.) Yes, that is in fact an exact quote. At the time I tried to be forgiving of it. I should have listened to the critics.

*It happened on at least two occasions. The infamous "ghoul surprise" was the big/obvious one, but the quiet collapse of Specialties, and as a result the total abandonment of the "Warlord Fighter" even though the devs had been very serious about supporting one, was another. The weaknesses of the Sorcerer and Warlock classes are in this boat too, and likely the flaws in the Fighter overall, since they dithered for almost two years before they finally settled on something.