D&D General How much control do DMs need?

[Aldarc]

I gave you my logic and reasoning. Feel free to have your own preferences and expectations, don't tell me what mine should be.

It seems deeply disingenuous to imply that I have done anything of the sort in my post, Oofta, because I haven't.

 

[Oofta]

It seems deeply disingenuous to imply that I have done anything of the sort in my post, Oofta, because I haven't.

I have preferences, I don't need to play specific games to know what those preferences are. I don't doubt that other games have ways of handling certain situations. But if I understand the rules that are constraining the GM, it would be less immersive for me. Maybe you don't understand why, and that's fine. You don't have to. I make no claim to how other people think or interact with the fiction of their games.

I haven't played other systems extensively, but I have read up on several over the years, played one shots, had in-person discussions, etc.. I don't need to drive my brother-in-law's dual cab F-150 to know I'd never purchase that vehicle even if they're happy with it. We all have preferences.

 

[hawkeyefan]

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.

I think it all depends. Different games have different systems for that kind of thing. If we're talking about things like XP budgets or rosters, then I think that means the game is focusing on some kind of balance.

If we're talking about constraint on the GM in how they're allowed to determine what happens in play... something like the soft moves or hard moves of PbtA games... that's something a little different.

Either way, not following those rules means you're changing how the game is meant to be played. Now, I don't necessarily think this is always a bad thing. In 5e, for instance, I don't calculate daily XP budgets or encounters and the like. I design my encounters entirely by whim, based on what I think makes sense, and what I think will present an interesting encounter. But even when I set aside the specific rules, I'm still considering things like level and the number of PCs and so on.

For something like moves in PbtA, I think departing from those rules is a much bigger deal. To use @Lanefan 's example of the sniper who the players know nothing about shooting a PC as he exits an inn... making a hard move like that without first signaling the danger in some way would be a pretty serious breach of the rules.

I think in either case, it's a matter of following the rules or not. But I think rules can be broken if you can justify it. In the 5e example, I'm comfortable that my skill to design encounters in 5e is sufficient that if I set aside the encounter building guidelines, things will still cohere. There won't be a negative impact to the game, or if there is, it'll be minimal.

But the sniper case... that's a bigger deal, and an explanation of "that guy you killed in session 5 was secretly an assassin of the badass guild and now this guy has come to get revenge, and you never knew muhahha" is in no way sufficient to justify breaking the rules that way.

 

[overgeeked]

It's always funny trying to have these conversations. I don't care what type of game you play, I can only do my best to explain my preferences, why I like what I like, what people I actually game with say they enjoy.

Meanwhile, pointing out that for some people other styles of game are better than the base assumptions of D&D and the traditional role of the DM I get "NOBODY SAYS THAT!!!!" Yet we've just had a couple of pages on how the GM needs constraints and that it makes it a better game. It's not that the DM is power hungry and abusive. It's just that the DM having official constraints on them prevents them from being power hungry and abusive. Not the same thing at all!

Either you trust the DM to run your game or you don't. I choose to trust the DM until proven otherwise. Even if I'm proven otherwise I'll chat with the DM and see if I can get them to see what the issue is (I've done this a couple of times with new DMs). If I can't resolve the issue then I doubt any amount of rules or constraints will fix the issue, they'll just look at it as a challenge to see how they can work around them. Because D&D is built around the idea and the DMG repeatedly states that the DM is just one player of the game with a different role. The game is about everyone at the table having fun. It's worked just fine for me for half a century.

If something else works better for you great. Just don't say that constraints are somehow inherently better or dismiss the opinions people who don't like knowing that the DM is constrained by the rules.

It's a really bizarre logical loop. People assume that everyone is somehow bound by the rules (they're not), that you cannot change the rules unless the rules tell you it's okay (you can change the rules regardless of what the rules say), and that having rules tell the referee what to do will prevent the referee from doing it wrong and/or ignoring the rules (neither of which is remotely true). The core assumption is that everyone's strictly and perfectly bound by the rules and the rest flow from that, but the core assumption is ridiculously false. Like laughably, absurdly, obviously false. Again, nothing happens when people ignore the rules...other than people who think the rules are sacrosanct get upset. Do people honestly think human minds work like programmable computers? Input immutable gaming code and output perfect game. That's not remotely how humans work, like at all.

 

[overgeeked]

As for signposting traps, sometimes it makes sense and sometimes it doesn't.

Is the trap in the early part of the dungeon where dozens of adventuring parties have likely already encountered it? Then there will be blood, graffiti, and other obvious signs of a trap...or even an already disabled trap.

Is the trap in a later part of the dungeon where no adventurers have ever explored? Then there will be zero warning. Because the makers of that trap did not make it to be easily found. They made it to injure or kill whoever was stupid enough to enter uninvited.

Game without verisimilitude misses the point just as much as verisimilitude without game misses the point.

 

[Oofta]

As for signposting traps, sometimes it makes sense and sometimes it doesn't.

Is the trap in the early part of the dungeon where dozens of adventuring parties have likely already encountered it? Then there will be blood, graffiti, and other obvious signs of a trap...or even an already disabled trap.

Is the trap in a later part of the dungeon where no adventurers have ever explored? Then there will be zero warning. Because the makers of that trap did not make it to be easily found. They made it to injure or kill whoever was stupid enough to enter uninvited.

Game without verisimilitude misses the point just as much as verisimilitude without game misses the point.

I've never really understood the "broadcast traps" concept. It's a trap. It's supposed to be a surprise. About the only exception for me is if the PCs are investigating the residence of a notorious trap maker or have done research to find out that a residence is trapped. I understand not wanting to waste time with people trying to check for traps every 5 feet, but there are other ways of handling it.

 

[overgeeked]

That's a really weird take about the MC in PbtA games and moves. One that'll be news to a lot of PbtA game designers.

Cartel, p125
Make Your Move!
The players have it easy. You tell them what’s happening and they get to make whatever move they like. You make your moves—as hard or soft as you like—only when:
...there’s a lull in the action.
...a player misses a roll.
...a player hands you a golden opportunity.

Lulls in the Action
It’s your job to keep the story moving. If the fiction ever stalls out, gets boring, or drags, it’s time for you to make a move. Generally, moves you make when there’s a lull in the action are softer moves, designed to get the characters moving and push the story forward, but you might need harder moves to get the characters to stand up and take meaningful action.

Golden Opportunities
If a player gives you a golden opportunity—blowing off an immediate problem, opening up to a dangerous foe, or acting without regard to their social or emotional security—it’s time for you to make a move. Golden opportunities usually demand harder moves: if the characters ignore obvious dangers, one of their enemies gets to act against them with impunity.

Thirsty Sword Lesbians, p86
GM Moves
As the GM, you never roll dice. Instead, it’s your responsibility to pose difficult choices to the PCs and to adjudicate which GM move to use as your down beat when a PC rolls a 6-. You can also intervene with a GM move and complicate the PCs’ lives whenever the table gets quiet and players look to you to figure out what happens next in the story. Finally, make a GM move whenever a formidable NPC suffers a Condition.

So no, it's not "breaking the rules" for an MC in PbtA games to just make a move without signposting it. There's more, but that's enough to get the point across.

 

[Lanefan]

So which is the sniper situation?

This is a nice example of the friction between the game and the fiction that's come up over the last couple of pages.

What warrants your decision to use the sniper? It sounds like, ultimately, you consider it your decision as GM to do so. It's based on your notes and what's been established (even if only in your notes, and the players remain blissfully unaware of it).

You want the game to model some sense of reality, and reality can be unfair.

But is an unfair game a satisfying one? Shouldn't there be rules in place to try and prevent unfairness in the game? I don't mean balance here, per se... I have no problem with encounters that are beyond the characters' power level or anything like that. I just think that such encounters need to be presented in a way that cues the danger, and then give the players a decision to avoid or face the danger.

What's good for the goose is good for the gander, and the players/PCs certanly have ways and means of making encounters be or become hella "unfair" to their foes. As I've no desire to take these ways and means away from the players/PCs, and I've even less desire to make the PCs "special" in the setting vis-a-vis the other inhabitants, then it naturally follows that - when warranted - NPCs get to use these tricks too.

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.

Sometimes you surprise the dragon, sometimes it surprises you. A situation where the PCs can kill a dragon in its sleep isn't exactly fair for the dragon, is it, even though it's great for the PCs; why should the reverse not also be able to occur now and then?

I mean, look at the cover of the Dragon magazine (65 I think) currently being revisited over in General. It shows a dragon potentially about to catch the lead two PCs completely off guard, meaning one of those PCs will likely be dead before it knew what hit it. I have no problem with this.

But should he?

Frequently? No. Never? Also no.

What makes your sniper situation any different?

I'm not saying it's any different. I'm saying that in context not only is the sniper's presence valid, the unawareness of the PCs to said presence before the sniper acts is also valid. (and don't forget, the sniper still has to roll to hit...)

 

[Lanefan]

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

Er...not quite.

Absolute power includes the power to not use that absolute power in deleterious ways.

Not using a power isn't the same as not having it.

 

[Aldarc]

I have preferences, I don't need to play specific games to know what those preferences are. I don't doubt that other games have ways of handling certain situations. But if I understand the rules that are constraining the GM, it would be less immersive for me. Maybe you don't understand why, and that's fine. You don't have to. I make no claim to how other people think or interact with the fiction of their games.

See @hawkeyefan's point above about different constraints that exist in different games. I addressed some of this already. I have seen how the sausage is made in D&D as a GM. It's not like I'm ignorant about what the GM is doing in D&D behind the scenes. I can't say that it interferes with my play in the slightest. To be clear, I'm not telling you what your preferences are here. I am only talking about my own experiences.

I haven't played other systems extensively, but I have read up on several over the years, played one shots, had in-person discussions, etc.. I don't need to drive my brother-in-law's dual cab F-150 to know I'd never purchase that vehicle even if they're happy with it. We all have preferences.

In the past, I was convinced that I would hate some foods, TV shows/movies, and music until I actually tried and experienced them for myself with an open mind and those personal experiences proved me wrong.