D&D General How much control do DMs need?

[pemerton]

On "natural" vs "artificial" worlds:

Here's an extract from an actual play report of Burning Wheel play:

the two character's wanted to continue more-or-less due east on the other side of both streams. This was heading into the neighbourhood of Auxol, and so Thurgon kept his eye out for friends and family. The Circles check (base 3 dice +1 for an Affiliation with the nobility and another +1 for an Affiliation with his family) succeeded again, and the two characters came upon Thurgon's older brother Rufus driving a horse and cart. (Thurgon has a Rationship with his mother Xanthippe but no other family members; hence the Circles check to meet his brother.)

There was a reunion between Rufus and Thurgon. But (as described by the GM) it was clear to Thurgon that Rufus was not who he had been, but seemed cowed - as Rufus explained when Thurgon asked after Auxol, he (Rufus) was on his way to collect wine for the master. Rufus mentioned that Thurgon's younger son had married not long ago - a bit of lore (like Rufus hmself) taken from the background I'd prepared for Thurgon as part of PC gen - and had headed south in search of glory (that was something new the GM introduced). I mentioned that Aramina was not meeting Rufus's gaze, and the GM picked up on this - Rufus asked Thurgon who this woman was who wouldn't look at him from beneath the hood of her cloak - was she a witch? Thurgon answered that she travelled with him and mended his armour. Then I switched to Aramina, and she looked Rufus directly in the eye and told him what she thought of him - "Thurgon has trained and is now seeking glory on his errantry, and his younger brother has gone too to seek glory, but your, Rufus . . ." I told the GM that I wanted to check Ugly Truth for Aramina, to cause a Steel check on Rufus's part. The GM decided that Rufus has Will 3, and then we quickly calculated his Steel which also came out at 3. My Ugly Truth check was a success, and the Steel check failed. Rufus looked at Aramina, shamed but unable to respond. Switching back to Thurgon, I tried to break Rufus out of it with a Command check: he should pull himself together and join in restoring Auxol to its former glory. But the check failed, and Rufus, broken, explained that he had to go and get the wine. Switching back to Aramina, I had a last go - she tried for untrained Command, saying that if he wasn't going to join with Thurgon he might at least give us some coin so that we might spend the night at an inn rather than camping. This was Will 5, with an advantage die for having cowed him the first time, against a double obstacle penalty for untrained (ie 6) +1 penalty because Rufus was very set in his way. It failed. and so Rufus rode on and now has animosity towards Aramina. As the GM said, she better not have her back to him while he has a knife ready to hand.

The encounter with Rufus; Thurgon's disappointment in him, and attempt to rouse him to action; Rufus's suspicion of Aramina, and shame and hostility at her barbs - how is any of that artificial?

 

[EzekielRaiden]

So coming upon a sleeping dragon and then asking them what they do is more fair than having a dragon land upon them from the sky with no warning at all. I mean, certainly that can happen, and the GM can do it at any point.

But should he?

Exactly. Absolute power that is never used because doing so would have deleterious consequences is not absolute power. It is conditional power--by definition.

If the power is going to be conditional either way, why not make those conditions knowable? Why not test those conditions, so we can shape them so that they work for us, rather than against us?

As I said much, much earlier in the thread: much, perhaps most of what is permitted by truly absolute GM latitude is merely the latitude to do things that are deleterious to the game. Things everyone, even stridently pro-Rule Zero folks, agree are deleterious to the game. Things everyone agrees the GM should not do, even though they could, because it just...wouldn't make a good game. If we all agree that such things are a problem, what is the point? Why bother with absolute GM latitude, when you could instead accept prodigious (but not absolute) GM latitude, cutting out the parts we agree are Seriously Bad Don't Do That? Because you totally can. You can design rules and limitations that don't prevent all possible bad GM behavior, but which, if followed, do prevent rather a lot of it. Hence my examples of things like needing to give honest answers in Dungeon World, or the emphasis on "be a fan of the characters" etc.

Absolute latitude isn't needed. The only things it definitely enables that aren't enabled by prudently (and slightly) limited GM latitude are bad for the game. So why insist on it, when one will then instantly turn around and apply those very limits to oneself? Again: isn't it better for these limits to be known, public, testable, questionable, rather than hidden away, unspoken, unchanging, unquestionable?

So, yes, I balance encounters. But if the PCs rush in blindly that balance may simply be a reasonable way for them to realize before its too late that they're in over there heads and options to bravely run away.

Then I don't understand why it's such a horrible problem to have a system which clearly and consistently answers such questions. Nothing about "you can use this to make balanced encounters" requires that players be incapable of running, heedless, headlong into danger. Far from it! You'll know (as DM, I mean) exactly the kind of danger they're running toward. The Fourthcore movement (which, IIRC, is sadly defunct now) was built around the idea of never having the kid gloves on, of a world that is genuinely dangerous and the players better bring their A game because the system sure as hell won't coddle them--they'll lose and they'll deserve it, because they did "rush in blindly," because they failed to plan or to "bravely run away," because they didn't have a good plan nor the ability to adapt and improvise.

 

[pemerton]

Exactly. Absolute power that is never used because doing so would have deleterious consequences is not absolute power. It is conditional power--by definition.

If the power is going to be conditional either way, why not make those conditions knowable? Why not test those conditions, so we can shape them so that they work for us, rather than against us?

I conjectured an answer to these questions in the thread I started earlier today:

In "trad", post-DL D&D, the general expectation is that the players will work through the GM's scenario or story. There are non-D&D PRGs, like CoC, that are played similarly. Some of the rules in these RPG do seem to have the function of easing negotiation - eg Perception checks or Research checks will determine when and how the GM dispenses new information to the players - but the rules don't seem to have any function of generating "unwelcome" outcomes. In adventure modules intended for this sort of play, there are often instructions to the GM about how to blunt outcomes that might be unwelcome (eg if a Perception check is failed, here's another way to provide the new information; if a NPC is killed, here's a way to introduce a new NPC to play the same role as the dead PC would have played in events that are yet to occur in play but are intended to occur as part of the scenario). I would say that an important role of mechanics in this sort of play is to generate a degree of uncertainty on the part of the players about the exact process that the GM is using to determine what happens next.

If the conditions are made known to the players, then the goal of generating uncertainty on the part of the players would be defeated.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

I conjectured an answer to these questions in the thread I started earlier today:
If the conditions are made known to the players, then the goal of generating uncertainty on the part of the players would be defeated.

Seems to me that you can still do that...you just can't do it for a prewritten adventure module. Which, if I'm understanding correctly, a prewritten adventure module wouldn't be acceptable under these lights either, for several of the reasons you gave--a vital NPC dies, just replace 'em with a similar one; a Perception check gets whiffed, drop hints in some other way; a secret treasure is required to advance, the party will find it somewhere else; etc.

That is, for a home game where it's being built as you go, the uncertainty remains because the players do not know what the GM will do with the powers vested in her. Knowing the parameters of monster creation doesn't actually tell you whether your next fight will be white-knuckled excitement, hilarious cakewalk, or flee-for-your-lives stuff. You'd have to do your research, talk to the one-armed old man at the tavern, scout ahead, etc.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

Exactly. Absolute power that is never used because doing so would have deleterious consequences is not absolute power. It is conditional power--by definition.

If the power is going to be conditional either way, why not make those conditions knowable? Why not test those conditions, so we can shape them so that they work for us, rather than against us?

As I said much, much earlier in the thread: much, perhaps most of what is permitted by truly absolute GM latitude is merely the latitude to do things that are deleterious to the game. Things everyone, even stridently pro-Rule Zero folks, agree are deleterious to the game. Things everyone agrees the GM should not do, even though they could, because it just...wouldn't make a good game. If we all agree that such things are a problem, what is the point? Why bother with absolute GM latitude, when you could instead accept prodigious (but not absolute) GM latitude, cutting out the parts we agree are Seriously Bad Don't Do That? Because you totally can. You can design rules and limitations that don't prevent all possible bad GM behavior, but which, if followed, do prevent rather a lot of it. Hence my examples of things like needing to give honest answers in Dungeon World, or the emphasis on "be a fan of the characters" etc.

Absolute latitude isn't needed. The only things it definitely enables that aren't enabled by prudently (and slightly) limited GM latitude are bad for the game. So why insist on it, when one will then instantly turn around and apply those very limits to oneself? Again: isn't it better for these limits to be known, public, testable, questionable, rather than hidden away, unspoken, unchanging, unquestionable?

You could codify those things. But as you note, in practice it hardly matters. Besides, it is easier for a person at the table judge what is prudent than for some distant rules author.

Then I don't understand why it's such a horrible problem to have a system which clearly and consistently answers such questions. Nothing about "you can use this to make balanced encounters" requires that players be incapable of running, heedless, headlong into danger. Far from it! You'll know (as DM, I mean) exactly the kind of danger they're running toward. The Fourthcore movement (which, IIRC, is sadly defunct now) was built around the idea of never having the kid gloves on, of a world that is genuinely dangerous and the players better bring their A game because the system sure as hell won't coddle them--they'll lose and they'll deserve it, because they did "rush in blindly," because they failed to plan or to "bravely run away," because they didn't have a good plan nor the ability to adapt and improvise.

Has anyone a problem with a system that helps to judge such things? I don't think so, merely with the idea that such a system should be slavishly followed.

 

[pemerton]

That is, for a home game where it's being built as you go, the uncertainty remains because the players do not know what the GM will do with the powers vested in her. Knowing the parameters of monster creation doesn't actually tell you whether your next fight will be white-knuckled excitement, hilarious cakewalk, or flee-for-your-lives stuff. You'd have to do your research, talk to the one-armed old man at the tavern, scout ahead, etc.

The closer the GM comes to working from a roster, the harder the uncertainty you posit here becomes. Even though tight encounter building guidelines don't, in themselves, entail a roster, they tend to give the players some sort of epistemic anchor. (At least, that was my experience in 4e play.)

The more the GM is at liberty just to make it up, the easier the uncertainty I mentioned becomes.

And if the GM really is at liberty just to make it up, then tight encounter building guidelines become a bit redundant.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

You could codify those things. But as you note, in practice it hardly matters. Besides, it is easier for a person at the table judge what is prudent than for some distant rules author.

Perhaps I misspoke. From where I'm sitting, the "doesn't matter" arrow only points one way. If you're going to self-limit, then some limits are there no matter what. But explicit limits can be--are--stated, which means they can be adjusted if it truly comes out that they're not right. They can also be tested, to improve their functionality. Unstated ones can't. By definition, you're stuck with whatever they happen to be.

Has anyone a problem with a system that helps to judge such things? I don't think so, merely with the idea that such system should be slavishly followed.

Have we read the same posts? Emphasis added in all cases.

I don't need any mechanical restrictions, no "points" to balance things out. I just build encounters that fit the desires of the group. I would dislike a game that forces the GM's hand to be "fair". I also don't need it.

However, death and even TPKs are never off the table. If those first level PCs go charging off to fight that ancient red dragon, they're going to be dragon chow. If they do prep work ahead of time, they'll know (or should know) what they're getting themselves into.

So, yes, I balance encounters. But if the PCs rush in blindly that balance may simply be a reasonable way for them to realize before its too late that they're in over there heads and options to bravely run away.

Personally I take living, breathing world over artificially balanced gauntlet any day.

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".

 

[EzekielRaiden]

The closer the GM comes to working from a roster, the harder the uncertainty you posit here becomes. Even though tight encounter building guidelines don't, in themselves, entail a roster, they tend to give the players some sort of epistemic anchor. (At least, that was my experience in 4e play.)

The more the GM is at liberty just to make it up, the easier the uncertainty I mentioned becomes.

And if the GM really is at liberty just to make it up, then tight encounter building guidelines become a bit redundant.

By "working from a roster," do you mean like...having the same antagonists show up repeatedly for rematches? That seems like such an odd way to play D&D of any edition.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

Perhaps I misspoke. From where I'm sitting, the "doesn't matter" arrow only points one way. If you're going to self-limit, then some limits are there no matter what. But explicit limits can be--are--stated, which means they can be adjusted if it truly comes out that they're not right. They can also be tested, to improve their functionality. Unstated ones can't. By definition, you're stuck with whatever they happen to be.

Considering that overwhelming amount of RPGs being played rely on such self imposed limits and seem to most of the time work just fine, I'm not convinced of the merits of more codified structure.

Have we read the same posts? Emphasis added in all cases.

In all the quotes the concern is about forcing the GM to balance things.

 

[pemerton]

By "working from a roster," do you mean like...having the same antagonists show up repeatedly for rematches? That seems like such an odd way to play D&D of any edition.

No. I'm following @loverdrive's idea. An example would be the Doom Pool in Marvel Heroic RP; or even the dungeon building rules in Torchbearer, though admittedly they're a bit looser.

4e is another (slightly byzantine) example, in the sense that the GM never gets to present more encounters than the total necessary to get the PCs to 30th level, and within that presentation of encounters the PCs will gain levels, with treasure parcels associated with those levels.

In summary: the GM is not free just to present whatever threats they like willy-nilly and without having to spend any "resources" of their own. I'm guessing that calling it a "roster" is taken from points-based wargame army building, but I think the idea generalises beyond that particular way of implementing it.