D&D General How much control do DMs need?

[pemerton]

Perhaps, but there does come across from some a strong sense of preferring that the authority all rest with the players, and that the GM be more of a non-authoritative rules processor (i.e. the GM acts almost as a "dumb terminal" for rules) and scene-setter.

Who are these "some"?

Not me - I have more actual play posts than I think anyone else participating in this thread. From them, you can see what I think the GM's job is in various systems.

Not @hawkeyefan, who has talked in multiple recent threads including ones you've participated in about his GMing of Spire.

Not @Manbearcat, who GMs a lot of DW, Stonetop, and BitD and has posted for years about various approaches to the narration of consequences.

Not @loverdrive or @soviet, who I'll admit I don't know as well, but who both are clearly very familiar with the GM role in Apocalypse World and similar games.

I've said it already in this thread, and I'll say it again: one of the most significant differences between (i) AW and (ii) D&D as typically played, is that in AW the GM is not entitled or expected to make hard moves purely by drawing upon hitherto-unrevealed prep.

That's it.

So the flipside becomes: why is it so important to you @Lanefan and to other posters too that the GM be able to do this?

 

[EzekielRaiden]

This was an interesting post and changed my mind on one point. So that I now have a model to put forward. First of all, I now feel it works well to think of the following as preexisting human behaviours or capacities -

1. Capacity to form and modify rules
2. Capacity to follow rules

You'll notice that I haven't listed interpretation. There are complexities that I believe don't obstruct what I'll go on to say, and I'm willing to unpack those if they turn out to matter. Elsewhere, I have used the construct that for a rule R there is a Z which is the rule as interpreted, and I have that in mind that here. 1. and 2. then fit very neatly with existing theory on regulatory and constitutive rules, which is to say that my rule N. is a regulatory rule that limits the preexisting ability to form and modify rules, and rule 0. is a regulatory rule that assigns it. So now as to Baker's claim about moment-to-moment acceptance. To address this, I propose that there is a C which is the commitment to follow a rule. C isn't a binary absolute, but rather a weight, disposition, tendency or propensity: the likelihood that the rule-follower will compy with the rule. (Note that like other models of cognition, factors like C are artifacts of the construct; chosen for their correlation to behaviour. Thus they are normally testable.) At any moment when my compliance with a rule is tested (do I accept it or not) that is a test of my C in respect of that rule. Where I have a strong commitment to following the rule (a high value for C) I am more likely to follow it than not follow it, etc. Thus it can properly be said that rule-following is enacted as moment-to-moment acceptance, and that the acceptance itself is in conformance with Cs. So that it can also be said that earlier events that change C will form probability-deltas to the moment-to-moment acceptance relative to what would be predicted in their absence. A GM securing vocal pre-agreement to rule 0 is an example of such an event. Reading a written rule and a written principle that it should be followed is another such event. Making oneself subject to the authority of an institution, such as to the organisers of a tournament, is yet another. And so on. C is always referred to in determining rule acceptance in the moment. One way to picture C is as a die roll made in the moment, with modifiers, whose result determines if the rule will be followed. So that it is true that we will only find out if a rule is accepted in the moment, and it is true that we can say something about what modifiers are in play (the strength of C). That successfully explains that written rules and principles, commitments to following them, and so on, will matter to acceptance in the moment. (NB: I've simplied my construct for C for the sake of this discussion.)

Glad to have provided the catalyst for change. Overall, this sounds similar to the (unstructured) thoughts I was having. That there is a disposition or propensity to follow rules, altered by evidence or observation. These dispositions or propensities can only work because they can draw on those underlying capacities (as well as others, though those two are far and away the most relevant for the current discussion.)

If I have understood you correctly, then the way to phrase my previous statements in this format would be, "For those like me who are skeptical of the need for (and benefits of) sweeping GM authority, the strident claim that Rule Zero uniquely and specially creates the capacity to change rules is deeply suspect." Because, as you say, that capacity (the ability to perform the behavior "change a rule") supervenes on all rules, including Rule Zero. One could argue that Rule Zero stands out as the best way to take advantage of this existing capacity, or that it mitigates some other problem that other forms of rule-change have (though I would certainly dispute both.) But to argue that Rule Zero makes it possible to do or creates the capacity is incorrect, and the insistence upon this connection casts a great deal of doubt on Rule Zero itself.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

Who are these "some"?

Not me - I have more actual play posts than I think anyone else participating in this thread. From them, you can see what I think the GM's job is in various systems.

Not @hawkeyefan, who has talked in multiple recent threads including ones you've participated in about his GMing of Spire.

Not @Manbearcat, who GMs a lot of DW, Stonetop, and BitD and has posted for years about various approaches to the narration of consequences.

Not @loverdrive or @soviet, who I'll admit I don't know as well, but who both are clearly very familiar with the GM role in Apocalypse World and similar games.

Not me either. A "dumb terminal" for rules cannot engage in the utterly vital scene-framing, enthusiasm-supporting, and opposition-tactics elements that are essential to making a good game in any system where conflict is possible (edit: I should say, possible and open-ended.)

My "game purposes" concept requires some or all of these for every purpose (that I have identified, anyway; I don't claim perfect taxonomy) that a game might be designed for. "Trad" D&D is generally designed for a variable mix of Groundedness & Simulation (portraying a consistent, external fictional "reality," implemented so as to enable naturalistic reasoning as much as possible) and Score & Achievement (overcoming measurably difficult challenges and recognizing, in at least a semi-objective way, one or more players' successful performance.) It might sound like S&A can be done with a "dumb terminal," and I certainly grant that it is the game-purpose that a "dumb terminal" comes closest to filling, but it would fail utterly at the nuanced and meaning-based reasoning that is the foundation of Achievement. (Score alone is meaningless, but Achievements without Score cannot be communicated: it's like trying to tell someone why X event in a story is SO AWESOME without them having to, y'know, read the story first. The story you're trying to skip is the thing that sets the Score, the semi-objective "this is why this act is worthy," and without that, the Achievement is just...av event that occurred, of no special interest.)

Both Values & Issues and Conceit & Emulation can't even start without a living, breathing GM. Groundedness & Simulation theoretically can run for a while, but will almost guaranteed run into issues sooner or later because rules are abstractions and even the best (lowercase s) simulation is not perfect (the map is not the territory.) Score and Achievement can theoretically run close to indefinitely if the scope of allowed Achievements is very narrow (think "computer games"), but in a tabletop environment that quickly becomes untenable because the game embraces the breadth of human imagination.

I've said it already in this thread, and I'll say it again: one of the most significant differences between (i) AW and (ii) D&D as typically played, is that in AW the GM is not entitled or expected to make hard moves purely by drawing upon hitherto-unrevealed prep.

That's it.

So the flipside becomes: why is it so important to you @Lanefan and to other posters too that the GM be able to do this?

Indeed.

 

[loverdrive]

Perhaps, but there does come across from some a strong sense of preferring that the authority all rest with the players, and that the GM be more of a non-authoritative rules processor (i.e. the GM acts almost as a "dumb terminal" for rules) and scene-setter. In other words, as someone brilliantly put it upthread, nothing more than a "meat computer".

No. Just no. It only makes sense if you think that rules can and should be possible to be processed by a computer, meat or otherwise.

There are rules to writing haikus, the author must abide the structure, but pretending like the poet is nothing but a "meat computer" is, frankly, asinine.

 

[Lanefan]

I've said it already in this thread, and I'll say it again: one of the most significant differences between (i) AW and (ii) D&D as typically played, is that in AW the GM is not entitled or expected to make hard moves purely by drawing upon hitherto-unrevealed prep.

That's it.

So the flipside becomes: why is it so important to you @Lanefan and to other posters too that the GM be able to do this?

Because, IMO, a) the setting has to have surprises, secrets, and backstory; and b) somebody (i.e. the DM) has to be charged with keeping those secrets and backstory elements straight, and their application consistent. That's what backstory prep is, and what it's for.

Unless the game specifically involves omniscient PCs, the PCs (and thus, the players) don't and can't know everything about the setting, and thus it's beyond artificial that they'd be warned about everything bad that's about to happen to them.

Referring to the sniper example upthread, once in a while in a dangerous environment such as that which adventurers usually seem to operate in, you're just not going to know what's hit you maybe even until after you're already dead...which mirrors the PCs ability to ambush a foe and place it in the same situation: it's dead before it knows what hit it. War, not sport.

And before anyone accuses me of supporting "gotcha" play, I'll just cut to the chase and say right out that yes, I do support gotcha play when it makes sense. Like anything else, it shouldn't be overdone, but nor should it be eschewed entirely.

AW only allows a hard move under certain prescribed circumstances. I prefer it if "hard moves" are allowed at any time that makes sense, as authorized by whatever prep the DM is using and-or whatever history has already been established through play.

An example of the first: if the module says there's a killer trap hidden there, I'm not going to proactively telegraph it and nor should I be expected to. Instead, they'll either proactively look, or they'll take a captive and get info, or do something else proactive to learn; or some unlucky PC is going to walk into it and die.

An example of the second (and this comes back to downstream hard moves as referenced earlier): revenge is a dish best served cold. If the PCs killed off a respected member of the local Assassins' guild last summer (maybe without even realizing who/what she was), then on returning to town for the winter it makes sense the guild is going to want their pound of flesh; hence the rooftop sniper with the poisoned bolt waiting for one of them to emerge from their inn.

 

[loverdrive]

Overall, balance gives freedom.

Imagine like you are playing a fighting game with your friend.

Situation A: the game is brilliantly balanced, not a single character has an intrinsic edge over another, there's a legitimate counter-play to every move in the playbook -- so you can pick whatever character you want for whatever reason you want and reasonably expect to both have fun yourself and deliver fun to the other player. Whatever you choose on the character select screen will not ruin the game. Whatever move you will make during the match will not ruin the game.

Situation B: the game is poorly balanced (looking at you, Marvel vs. Capcom 2), it's tierlist resembles Grand Canyon -- so you have to choose carefully. "Oooh, this dude is HOT, I wanna main him!" ain't gonna fly. You may like Captain 'murica or Chun-Li as much as you want, you either pick a real character or you aren't even playing the real game.

And it's actually even worse: you need to either learn this disparity the hard way, or have someone else to tell you about it. You need external, out of game knowledge to engage with it.

In the same way, when I'm running a game like AW or Fate, I can focus on what I find interesting, put my feet on the table and enjoy the ride. My thinking process is simple:

1. Oooh this sounds cool!
2. Do the rules allow me to do it?
   1. Yes => Cool!
   2. No => It's probably actually not cool, and would break the moment I try to actually pull it off

Games like D&D, or World of Darkness, or whatever else mid-school game there is, don't have the same, uhm, "advanced targetting system". If I let go off the driver's wheel for a split-second, the whole damn enterprise will end up in a ditch.

 

[loverdrive]

Unless the game specifically involves omniscient PCs, the PCs (and thus, the players) don't and can't know everything about the setting, and thus it's beyond artificial that they'd be warned about everything bad that's about to happen to them.

Yes, it is artificial. Games are artificial, they are made to be enjoyed.

Referring to the sniper example upthread, once in a while in a dangerous environment such as that which adventurers usually seem to operate in, you're just not going to know what's hit you maybe even until after you're already dead...which mirrors the PCs ability to ambush a foe and place it in the same situation: it's dead before it knows what hit it. War, not sport.

The abilities of PCs and NPCs don't need to be symmetrical. PCs represent actual living people in our meat-space, they are interface to engage with the game. NPCs aren't people. They exist to be interacted with, they breathe, live, and die for the players.

Especially when the match-up is intrinsically asymmetrical. A player has one PC, a handful at best. GM has infinite snipers. Yeah, they have to "make sense", but narrative justifications are a dime a dozen. Even more so when the players aren't expected to know everything.

PCs are valuable -- players have payed the price in points, rolls and blood for them to exist. NPCs are free. If there were costs associated with introducing them, then yeah, maybe it would be fair.

 

[clearstream]

If I have understood you correctly, then the way to phrase my previous statements in this format would be, "For those like me who are skeptical of the need for (and benefits of) sweeping GM authority, the strident claim that Rule Zero uniquely and specially creates the capacity to change rules is deeply suspect." Because, as you say, that capacity (the ability to perform the behavior "change a rule") supervenes on all rules, including Rule Zero.

Well, the claim would just be wrong. Rule zero is a regulatory rule acting upon that capacity.

One could argue that Rule Zero stands out as the best way to take advantage of this existing capacity, or that it mitigates some other problem that other forms of rule-change have (though I would certainly dispute both.)

Yes, although the model doesn't guarantee that. It gives you a sense of where to look. Seek agreement up-front. Talk over the benefits you're aiming for. Write the rule at your table down. Create an institution.

But to argue that Rule Zero makes it possible to do or creates the capacity is incorrect, and the insistence upon this connection casts a great deal of doubt on Rule Zero itself.

It depends what you mean by doubt. Until I wrote in this thread that Rule Zero is a regulatory rule assigning the given capacity exclusively to GM, no one else made that claim in those terms. (That doesn't mean that no one else intuited it - as they evidently did - but I haven't yet found it laid out in those precise terms.) Insistence on the connection would show most of all that the holder of that insistence hasn't yet thought through the construction of Rule Zero (or has reached other conclusions), but would have no bearing on the rule itself. Nor on its efficacy (or otherwise) in achieving whatever ends those who apply it have in mind.

For instance, advocates could argue that it makes it more possible for them to exercise that capacity effectively at their tables. Compared with a preexisting state where it was not possible for them to exercise that capacity effectively at their tables. Thus they have a justification for their view. Pragmatically, they could hold a skeptical position with regard to any construction and prefer to speak of what counts in their experience.

On the other hand, I could say that if their construction is incorrect then that could be indicative of other misapprehensions - especially those connected with their construction. I take it to be this kind of doubt that you are referring to, right? Here what I've tried to do is show how both sides might look at it. Justification for one side. Doubt for another.

 

[clearstream]

PCs are valuable -- players have payed the price in points, rolls and blood for them to exist. NPCs are free. If there were costs associated with introducing them, then yeah, maybe it would be fair.

I like this point. I sometimes think about the calculations of lethality in RPG in terms of poker stakes, where the chips are time-invested. That sniper is a wager of a few minutes to maybe an hour or two (for a recurring or highly-detailed NPC). The player-character is a wager of at minimum a few minutes up to in some cases hundreds of hours. (Hence lethality gradients intuitively curve downward at higher levels.)

That's on the one hand, and on the other hand sometimes we're seeking a specific experience and the costs don't bother us: we're committed anyway. Say I have a character that I've enjoyed playing for every one of its 100 hours, killed by that sniper in hour 101. And that sniper, say a GM spent an hour of care creating an NPC effectively in my service. It's not a poker game and neither of us will leave the table with any of our time back, so in a sense it is the moment-to-moment that matters.

Hence I think you rightly invoke an emotional component (or at least, that is how I understand "and blood".) In a GM'd game, GM is ordinarily assumed to have no emotional investment in the sniper. (They might, I'm speaking only of what I've observed folk normally do and say.) Maybe that in itself is a bad thing? Like, if we want to challenge GM power, perhaps we've equal grounds for challenging GM lack of emotional engagement in their characters? (Totally speculative, I just wanted to get that question out there!)

 

[loverdrive]

That's on the one hand, and on the other hand sometimes we're seeking a specific experience and the costs don't bother us: we're committed anyway. Say I have a character that I've enjoyed playing for every one of its 100 hours, killed by that sniper in hour 101. And that sniper, say a GM spent an hour of care creating an NPC effectively in my service. It's not a poker game and neither of us will leave the table with any of our time back, so in a sense it is the moment-to-moment that matters.

I don't think time invested by the GM matters, really. From the outside, the difference between carefully planned assassination where the GM took sniper's capabilities into the account, rolled dice or whatever the same way she would do for the PCs, and a decision to screw that player in particular on a whim is non-existent.

An ambush kill in a game like D&D will always look cheap, and being completely unrepeatable and unverifiable, this means it will always be cheap.

Hence I think you rightly invoke an emotional component (or at least, that is how I understand "and blood".) In a GM'd game, GM is ordinarily assumed to have no emotional investment in the sniper. (They might, I'm speaking only of what I've observed folk normally do and say.) Maybe that in itself is a bad thing? Like, if we want to challenge GM power, perhaps we've equal grounds for challenging GM lack of emotional engagement in their characters? (Totally speculative, I just wanted to get that question out there!)

I mused about it upthread, it was something along the lines of "if you have infinite dragons, there's no thrill in using this specific one to the best of your abilities".

I do believe that a game like D&D would work infinitely better if there was some kind of roster-building mechanic, where GM has to pay resources to do stuff, conforming narrative to the rules rather than vice-versa, both way more fun to run and, obviously, way more fun to play.