D&D General How much control do DMs need?

[EzekielRaiden]

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.

How could it possibly be too vague?

In the real world, when you kill someone's soldiers, they have fewer soldiers to field. That's literally the most basic possible bit of knowledge one can have: by removing something, there is less of it!

 

[EzekielRaiden]

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...

"Blindly" can mean doing things carelessly, "without direction or purpose," not just in the absence of knowledge.

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?

So, your assertion is that when you go exploring, you know nothing whatsoever about the area. Nothing, at all, can be learned about it without physically going there first. That claim sounds outright bizarre to me.

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?

Then, if you would, call out others when they do it too. Obviously you aren't required to, but it just rankles a lot when I see TONS of hyperbole, but it only gets called out as a problem when folks of a particular position use it.

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.

I'll be honest, yes, I did infer that. I appreciate both the clarification and the humility required to make it.

 

[pemerton]

@pemerton seems to think it does. I don't really remember, we certainly didn't play it that way.

Huh?

4e doesn't force anything about balance. But it does put the GM on a type of "roster". Because it has tight rules for XP-per-unit-of-play, for levels per XP, and for treasure parcels per level.

It doesn't have tight rules for frequency of extended rests (cf 13th Age) and that's one interesting pressure point in the system. Different approaches to handling that can produce different play experiences. (The milestone rules are important here, but I don't think they fully even out the impact of variability of rest frequencies.)

It also doesn't have tight rules for the rate or "density" at which the GM can deploy their roster. The DMG makes some suggestions, which I think are generally sensible at Heroic tier but tend to lose their relevance at Paragon and Epic tier.

 

[pemerton]

It's the same when playing a game. If there's some kind of official constraint on the DM, I'm always going to think about how many points they've spent (or whatever the currency of the game is) and doing meta-analysis.

But when playing a D&D combat, don't you think about the AC, the hit points, the initiative, the risk of a dragon's breath weapon recharging, etc?

 

[pemerton]

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.

No one I've read has said anything about GMs being "power hungry and abusive".

The discussion has been about a GM roster.

 

[Oofta]

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.

Such as? I honestly don't know what you're trying to say unless it's "You guys are doing it wrong so I'm going to make a broad assertion of Bozo no-noes" which I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and assume isn't correct. But a specific list of things? Like what? I mean, I get a general consensus on how deadly a campaign is going to be from the group, I wouldn't count that as "must be prepared to do". Temperament? Huh? That they should run a game that's fun for everyone? World building is something I just enjoy and it gives me a great deal of flexibility in campaign direction and the ability to respond to the PCs when they insist on taking a left at Albuquerque.

So can we get a clarification, any actual example?

 

[Oofta]

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.



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.

Based on what some people have said, no it would not be following the rules or intent of the game for some games.

 

[Oofta]

How could it possibly be too vague?

In the real world, when you kill someone's soldiers, they have fewer soldiers to field. That's literally the most basic possible bit of knowledge one can have: by removing something, there is less of it!

In the real world do you know exactly how many troops the enemy has in reserve? Yes, if you kill 1 soldier they have 1 soldier fewer. Is that 10%, 1% or .00001% of the current emplacement. How many replacement troops are there that are staged where they can easily be brought in? For that matter, can they muster new recruits and if so how long before they're trained and brought to the front?

This kind of tactical information is unknown most of the time. Killing 1 or 100 soldiers is meaningless unless you know the bigger picture.

 

[Oofta]

But when playing a D&D combat, don't you think about the AC, the hit points, the initiative, the risk of a dragon's breath weapon recharging, etc?

It's impossible to remove game rules. But I'm still thinking of it as a dragon, not that the GM spent X points so therefore they have Y left.

If you don't get my perspective, fine. I've tried to explain it whether you understand it or not.

 

[Oofta]

No one I've read has said anything about GMs being "power hungry and abusive".

The discussion has been about a GM roster.

And if the GM doesn't have a roster they should. If they don't then the game should have one because "it won't hurt anything". Which is BS.