D&D General How much control do DMs need?

[Imaro]

...because a system with a functional encounter design system will give you a good idea of that. An encounter that is designed to be a minor skirmish for 1st level characters (say, "medium" difficulty in 5e) is going to be pretty boring for 10th level characters, even in 5th edition. The party will roflstomp it. An encounter designed to be a serious challenge for 20th level characters (a step beyond "deadly") will be instantly lethal. The problem is, in 5e, the CR system is so useless, you can get the same problems from encounters built for level 8 and 12!

My question is...Why is a head up fight the only option? I mean if the pllayers decide that's thew only course of action and it's always their go to... I guess there's a point to be made but... I think there's bigger problems if that's the only and always option.

In your example above... couldn't that high level party instead intimidate, bribe or otherwise negotiate the "minor skirmish" 1st level encounter into perhaps giving them information about the area, a new threat, become regular informants and so on for them as opposed to just slaughtering them?

Couldn't the low level party decide to run... negotiate, trick or numerous other things the 20th level encounter.

As for the problem with the 5e's CR system... they are upfront that it is a rough estimate and with bounded accuracy making things across levels still challenging I'm not sure their should be that big of a difference between 8th and 12th level opponent. On top of that the prevailing and constant complaint around 5e combat is that it is too easy... I don't often, if at all, hear stories of encounters being insta-kills that were designed with the CR system in mind. And yes I remember the ghoul encounter... but one instance is not the norm.

Now, of course, some trivial things are still worth doing because they have some other rationale behind them, but we don't really have good words in English for "this genuinely trivial, no-challenge task that still needs to be done because we care about something that requires that task." Mostly, I think, because it's assumed that if the trivial thing is worth doing, you'd have done it already.

I'd be more apt to say assuming something is trivial instead of giving your player's the choice to decide that is a mistake. If the players don't want to engage with something they won't... if they do, they will. I odn't look at it as my job to decide for them what should or shouldn't be trivial for them to do or interact with in the game.... I feel like if I did this I'd be railroading them... and that's not how I run my game.

Which...has nothing whatever to do with encounter building. This is a total non sequitur.


Which also has nothing to do with encounter building.

Encounter does not equal combat... that's the main issue with your entire outlook on this.

I don't understand how these things are at all comparable. Besides, it's not like 5e doesn't have magic item prices. It does! Yet the books exclaim the "magic item mart" just fine.

Uhm... in the core rulebooks? Where exactly?

 

[Oofta]

In this case, I was leaning on @Lanefan 's example where a sniper took a shot on a PC as they exited an inn. Where the reasons for this were entirely unknown to the players, but they were known to Lanefan as the GM.

I compared this with the example of a dragon swooping from the sky and attacking the party suddenly and forcing a confrontation.

Lanefan said that there was no real difference between these examples, and said that they'd sometimes be out of place, but not always.

They seem unfair to me. So these are what I was talking about.

The DM in D&D has unlimited resources. They can essentially wave their hands and the PCs will die. What prevents that? I would say that it's some sense of fairness... some acknowledgment that this is a game, and so it should function in certain ways.

At what point would a DM cross a line where you'd consider something not fair in that way?

Well, @Lanefan and I run quite different games. But there are rare times when the PCs in my game will face an overwhelming threat. They can always attack because I don't control the PCs actions so if they do attack it's likely they'll be annihilated. As far as the sniper attack? Well, that depends on player preference. If they're okay with that kind of lethality then if the story demanded it I would definitely use it. I'd also let the PCs know why it happened after the fact somehow.

To me, this is one of the areas of flexibility that D&D has that seems to be missing from some games unless you potentially ignore the rules. I generally ask people where they want to be on the threat level. We can go anywhere from "death is highly unlikely" to "you may want to write up a backup character or three". In the campaign I'm currently playing the DM has already warned us that lethality is likely to be high so I have a backup character already.

To me it's fair as long as the players know what to expect. I've certainly played with unfair DMs who wiped out the entire party with what were effectively unavoidable traps, in that case it was unfair because they didn't set expectations or get buy-in. The guidelines in D&D tell you how to calculate encounter difficulty (even if the guidelines are a bit FUBAR), it tells you how much you can expect the PCs to survive. It doesn't tell you that you can't exceed those limits.

 

[Oofta]

...
Question: What spying is required to gain the knowledge, "because we defeated the Goblin King's reinforcements yesterday, the Goblin King now has fewer forces to call on than he had before"? Because that was the core point here. When the Goblin King has quantum reinforcements that are always exactly as full as the DM needs them to be, that show up whenever the DM decides the players just did excessively well in a particular battle (or don't show up if the players struggled a lot), it's at least as artificial as it would be to have encounters balanced to selected levels (not the party's level, but whatever level makes sense for the various goblin squads to be.) I would argue far more artificial, actually, because real armies are actually organized into groups of roughly comparable ability so they may be deployed more effectively, while zero real armies have the power (and curse) of growing stronger when their enemies are unexpectedly strong and weaker when their enemies are unexpectedly weak.
...

That's too vague of a question to answer. It could be calling in a favor from the local spy guild that you won't be able to use later. It could be paying a large sum of money (large enough to actually matter). It could be a special mission to intercept a courier. It could be a complex skill challenge with a lot of RP and possible combat. Depending on the scenario it could be that many Bothans died to get the plans. Depends on what I'm trying to set up and what makes sense.

 

[Swarmkeeper]

Okay. Question: Why would a party either (a) utterly blindly or (b) knowingly and willingly go into places where they know they're either wasting their time because there's nothing worth doing, or risking instant death because they're going to be in way over their heads?

Which I explicitly excluded with the whole "knowing" bit.

Fair enough for (b). But now that I re-read what you wrote, there is no way for a party to "utterly blindly... go into places where they know they're either wasting their time because there's nothing worth doing, or risking instant death because they're going to be in way over their heads?"
If they know, then they aren't doing it "utterly blindly" and if they're doing it "utterly blindly" then they can't know. Therefore... (c) exploring...

If you're exploring, you don't have knowledge of what you're going to face, do you? But you're still going to at least try to go to places that aren't likely to be suddenly and shockingly difficult or absolutely trivial and unrewarding, right? Even in a "West Marches" game. You're foing to try to do things that are relevant and not things that are dull or deathtraps.

This is a strange claim to me. The point of exploration (whether directly or indirectly via research of some sort) is to determine what's there. Before that, you just don't know. What am I misunderstanding in your point here?

People have been on the hyperbole train for ages in this thread. Feels a bit odd that it's only now unacceptable.

Just b/c I pointed out your hyperbole, it doesn't excuse others. IMO, it's not productive to use and/or excuse hyperbole just b/c others are doing it. So... maybe just don't employ it?

Why is inference only a problem when one side does it? There's been plenty of it in the thread thus far.

Not that my quote to which you were responding was directed at you but, since you asked: It's not "only a problem when one side does it" (whatever these perceived "sides" may be). Inference can lead to problems, offense, etc. It's better to ask questions then infer intent, IMO. Of course, I'm not trying to lecture anyone here (hope you didn't infer that) as I'm still working on it myself.

 

[hawkeyefan]

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.

I doubt it.

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.

This is a pretty common breakdown among the PbtA games I'm familiar with. I'm not an expert by any means, but I have a good deal of familiarity with several of them. Not all of them work the same, and I've not played or read Cartel nor Thirsty Sword Lesbians, so I don't know if they deviate wildly from the overall PbtA design. My guess is that they do not.

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.

I've bolded the element that's really important here. When there's a lull, you don't just hit a character with harm. You make a softer move, signal future badness, let's say. If you do make a hard move, then it should be one more designed to force some action than to inflict harm or penalties.

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.

I just bolded the rest of this section because this is describing a situation where you've established a threat and the player does nothing about it, so you make a hard move. There's no surprise for the player here. This is a big part of my point. You don't make this kind of move unless you've already made a soft move toward it, and the player does nothing about it.

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.

Again, I bolded the whole thing because I don't think it contradicts what I said. It makes no comment on soft or hard moves, here, but it clearly dictates when you can make a move. Two of the three times are very clear and specific. The other, "when the table gets quiet" sounds very much like a when there's a lull above, so I imagine it would work the same.

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.

I don't agree at all. I think you cherry picked some tidbits that you thought made a strong case... but I don't think that they really did, since they don't clearly contradict what I was saying. They mostly support what I said. And there's so much of each book that you left out that I expect was much more in synch with what I said.... so yeah, not enough to get the point across.

I think your general take on rules and how malleable they always are doesn't jibe well at all with Apocalypse World or most of the PbtA games I know. There certainly are some that run differently, so maybe your view would be more suitable for those, but I think they'd have to deviate pretty wildly to for that to be the case.

 

[Campbell]

It's funny. Those who wave their arms up and down about flexibility seem to have such very long and specific lists about the things a GM must be prepared to do, what their temperament must be, how much they must enjoy world building, etc. It seems very much like the opposite of flexibility to me.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

Consider the implications of my saying that limiting absolute power's use makes it conditional power.

1. To make choices about the use of power means using it in some ways and not some other ways
2. If there are some ways that absolute power is not used - due to choices about the way that it is used - I call it conditional power
3. But wouldn't one power absolute power be guaranteed to have, be the power to make choices about its use?
4. Therefore to count as absolute power it must also be conditional power: an obvious paradox

Note the condition I set: that one would not do something because the consequences would be bad. Not failing to do something because you never considered it, nor because you were just preoccupied and never got the chance, nor because you elected to do Thing A instead of Thing B due to liking Thing A better but would gladly switch to Thing B if (say) you realized Thing A was contradictory or the like.

To my mind, one ought to be skeptical of the idea of absolute power altogether, and focus instead on sufficient power which is already conceded to be conditional. One condition is how one chooses to use it.

I mean, I argued pretty much literally that earlier in the thread, and the point was either ignored or disputed, so...yeah, I mean, I agree. The conditions are always there, so it's not a choice between absolute and conditional, it's between different conditions, hence my arguments to the tune of "if there will always be conditions, shouldn't we pick conditions that have useful features?" E.g. being able to check to see if they work (testable), being able to decide if we agree with them or not (open/explicit), being able to share them with others to find out ways to use them better (teachable/describable), etc.

GM-power is of that type: it is sufficient. What counts as sufficient depends on game modes, group preferences, individual interests and skill... all kinds of things. It's a spectrum. I would say some posters here prefer more, some less, some prefer one set of conditions, some another set. So far as I can see, arguments that work with an assumption that GM-power only counts as such if it is absolute won't yield useful understanding.

I fully agree. Hence, we should reject an argument built upon a foundation such as "absolute power(/latitude/etc.) is needed in order to achieve X." Because there is no such thing. There is only conditional power(/latitude/etc.) Which means it is valid to question which conditions are useful--and to ask what it means for a condition to be useful in the first place. In other words, questions of game design theory! (Hence why, in past threads, and good Lord it doesn't feel like this was a year ago, I have tried to examine the purposes for which a game gets designed. Because those purposes can tell us an awful lot about the conditions on any given participant's power, player, GM, or otherwise.)

 

[EzekielRaiden]

It's funny. Those who wave their arms up and down about flexibility seem to have such very long and specific lists about the things a GM must be prepared to do, what their temperament must be, how much they must enjoy world building, etc. It seems very much like the opposite of flexibility to me.

Indeed. Almost like they're already operating under a ton of restrictions, they're just restrictions so familiar one does not think about them much. But make those restrictions open--and thus able to be questioned, tested, agreed-upon--and suddenly it's a horrible affront. Which then leads to, y'know, actually showing those questioned, tested, and (hopefully) agreed-upon restrictions, and you get baffled questions about how this differs from what they do!

 

[EzekielRaiden]

My question is...Why is a head up fight the only option?

You're generalizing way, way, WAY outside the scope of the original complaint. Which was that having limits on what the GM is allowed to do with resources is anathema. Even if those limits are something as simple as "by defeating the BBEG's reinforcements in Session 12, the BBEG has fewer forces to draw upon in Session 14." The idea that the only option is always fighting is a complete and total non sequitur. It would be like asking why the only option is for every car to crash, after someone has questioned the need for (perhaps expensive) safety features like anti-lock breaks, seat belts, and airbags. Obviously, there are other forms of driving than crashing into things! But non-crash driving is irrelevant if we are talking about whether cars need safety features or not.

As for the problem with the 5e's CR system... they are upfront that it is a rough estimate and with bounded accuracy making things across levels still challenging I'm not sure their should be that big of a difference between 8th and 12th level opponent. On top of that the prevailing and constant complaint around 5e combat is that it is too easy... I don't often, if at all, hear stories of encounters being insta-kills that were designed with the CR system in mind. And yes I remember the ghoul encounter... but one instance is not the norm.

It doesn't matter if it's "not the norm" or not. The system gives you no warning whatsoever about that kind of thing. Indeed, it being "not the norm" but still quite probable--say, 10% of the time--is almost worse, because at least if it were the norm, DMs would be watching for it, as opposed to blindsided by it.

If the people who designed the game get blindsided by this sort of thing, what hope do DMs have of doing better? These folks literally MADE it be what it is, and it still befuddled them!

I'd be more apt to say assuming something is trivial instead of giving your player's the choice to decide that is a mistake. If the players don't want to engage with something they won't... if they do, they will. I odn't look at it as my job to decide for them what should or shouldn't be trivial for them to do or interact with in the game.... I feel like if I did this I'd be railroading them... and that's not how I run my game.

Again, you are talking about a completely different topic. What players assign meaning to is COMPLETELY orthogonal to what is an interesting challenge. And before you jump to conclusions about that, yes, D&D is about dealing with challenges and conflicts. It's why the vast majority of the game's text is spent on things that do damage, or ameliorate damage taken, or prevent damage from occurring.

Encounter does not equal combat... that's the main issue with your entire outlook on this.

I...just...

The conversation was ABOUT combat encounter design. I didn't bring that in! That's what other people were already talking about.

This is like saying that driving does not equal crashing. Of course it doesn't! But it's irrelevant to talk about grocery store runs and trips to the beach (even though the former is an essential thing for most households and the latter is one of the nicer things you can do with a vehicle) when the topic at hand is whether safety features are worth including.

Uhm... in the core rulebooks? Where exactly?

Moving goalposts. You did not mention any requirement of them being in core. Their mere existence was enough.

 

[hawkeyefan]

Well, @Lanefan and I run quite different games. But there are rare times when the PCs in my game will face an overwhelming threat. They can always attack because I don't control the PCs actions so if they do attack it's likely they'll be annihilated. As far as the sniper attack? Well, that depends on player preference. If they're okay with that kind of lethality then if the story demanded it I would definitely use it. I'd also let the PCs know why it happened after the fact somehow.

Right, that's all fine. I'm not talking about presenting a threat, and then letting the players decide how to deal with it, and letting the dice fall where they may.

I'm talking about a situation where the threat isn't clear, and the consequence just happens.

To me, this is one of the areas of flexibility that D&D has that seems to be missing from some games unless you potentially ignore the rules. I generally ask people where they want to be on the threat level. We can go anywhere from "death is highly unlikely" to "you may want to write up a backup character or three". In the campaign I'm currently playing the DM has already warned us that lethality is likely to be high so I have a backup character already.

Can't that be done in any game? Tales From the Loop puts death for the PCs off the table because they're kids, and the game isn't really about risking death in the same way we're not really worried about the Goonies dying.

But there's no reason you couldn't change the rule to say that kids can die. In fact, the sequel to TFtL is Things From the Flood, and in that game, the PCs can die.

This seems to be something that most games can adjust to taste.

To me it's fair as long as the players know what to expect. I've certainly played with unfair DMs who wiped out the entire party with what were effectively unavoidable traps, in that case it was unfair because they didn't set expectations or get buy-in. The guidelines in D&D tell you how to calculate encounter difficulty (even if the guidelines are a bit FUBAR), it tells you how much you can expect the PCs to survive. It doesn't tell you that you can't exceed those limits.

Unavoidable traps are an example of what I'm talking about. In more classic type play where it's PCs delving a dungeon, traps are expected, and so searching for them is kind of a standard element. It's expected to be part of play.

That the rules don't prevent the DM from doing unfair things doesn't make them fair. In such a case, I'd say that the DM is placing verisimilitude over game. He's saying that because he can justify it in the fiction of the game, it's more important than the experience of the player at the table.

Which is his prerogative, of course. As you say, if everyone is playing with this expectation, then cool, go with it. But just about everyone will have a line somewhere.