D&D General How much control do DMs need?

[EzekielRaiden]

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.

So the GM can just draw up more reinforcements from the aether whenever and wherever it suits them. Something not only flagrantly unrealistic, but done for the abstract value of "spicing up" moments that got dull or pumping the brakes on something that went harder than expected.

If "realism" were really such a concern, I would think you wouldn't be so blithe about the opposition having forces as the plot demands.

 

[pemerton]

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 understand - "signposting" is making a move. The point about the sniper example is about when its appropriate to make a hard move.

 

[Campbell]

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?

What I am saying is that you and others have these insane purity tests for what a roleplaying game is and how it should be ran/played. Then you make broad claims about how other games work / how other GMs run their games to make them look absurd. Then you make comparative claims about flexibility born out of zero experience.

You also seem to think that people like me who have different cognitive processes than you should not be GMs.
I have never made claims that your play is invalid or could not ever work. Your preferences do not determine how things work or function. Yet you continue to condescend to those of us who take different approaches.

 

[pemerton]

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.

By "PCs" do you mean players?

Also, what does it mean for "the story" to demand something? Do you mean that the GM thinks that's the most logical thing that follows from their knowledege of what has happened in play plus hitherto-unrevealed backstory?

 

[Oofta]

So the GM can just draw up more reinforcements from the aether whenever and wherever it suits them. Something not only flagrantly unrealistic, but done for the abstract value of "spicing up" moments that got dull or pumping the brakes on something that went harder than expected.

If "realism" were really such a concern, I would think you wouldn't be so blithe about the opposition having forces as the plot demands.

As DM I likely know, or at least have a rough idea. That doesn't mean the PCs know anything. I have no idea where you're going with this.

 

[pemerton]

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.

Most D&D players I've played with at least keep some rough track of hit point totals - like "the dragon had maybe X points and so therefore probably has Y left".

 

[Oofta]

By "PCs" do you mean players?

Also, what does it mean for "the story" to demand something? Do you mean that the GM thinks that's the most logical thing that follows from their knowledege of what has happened in play plus hitherto-unrevealed backstory?

I meant what I said the PCs may learn something, which obviously the players know as well. The "story" is just the ongoing events of the world that are a logical chain from goals of NPCs and their interaction or responses to what the PCs have done. If a character's backstory links into that it may come into play.

 

[pemerton]

And if the GM doesn't have a roster they should.

Suppose someone assert this - what does it have to do with GMs being "power hungry and abusive"? Nothing at all!

Which was my point: you asserted that various posters described GMs as power hungry and abusive, but in fact NONE did.

If you can't think of any reason why someone would think a roster is a good bit of game design, other than that they think GMs are power hungry and abusive, well that's on you.

 

[Oofta]

Most D&D players I've played with at least keep some rough track of hit point totals - like "the dragon had maybe X points and so therefore probably has Y left".

Okay. And? I mean, I tweak monsters all the time so I wouldn't count on it in my game. On the other hand I will give the players general idea of health status.

I've never said I can totally divorce myself from the game rules. If I'm watching TV I don't forget I'm watching TV. If I read a book I'm still reading words. Doesn't mean I can't get immersed and involved in the story.

 

[pemerton]

I meant what I said the PCs may learn something, which obviously the players know as well. The "story" is just the ongoing events of the world that are a logical chain from goals of NPCs and their interaction or responses to what the PCs have done. If a character's backstory links into that it may come into play.

BY "ongoing events of the world that are a logical chain from goals of NPCs" etc, I take it you mean things the GM has made up and is imagining but that are not necessarily yet revealed to the players.