D&D General How much control do DMs need?

[pemerton]

Of course any RPG city is impressionistic, but it's valid to constrain yourself to establishing truths not in view of the PCs, but in view of the world which they are a part of.

RQ can be run that way. In Glorantha, the Citadel of Trilus exists in Balazar even if PCs never see it. The idea is to start from the world, not the PCs.

What does it mean to say that the Citadel of Trilus, written about in a book by (let's say - I don't actually know)) Greg Stafford, is part of the shared fiction, even if some of the participants in creating and imagining that shared fiction (ie the players) have never heard of it?

One possible meaning is this: to say that X is part of the shared fiction, even though it is not literally shared, is to say something like If participant P were to posit, in play, that X is true in the fiction, and to extrapolate further parts of the fiction from that posit - even hard moves - then the other participants would go along with it.

I'm personally not the biggest fan of counterfactual analyses, but I think there has to be some account of what these proposition about "the world" mean in terms of how the shared fiction is established.

 

[pemerton]

The contention I was trying (and, apparently, failing) to make was that it seems there's some here who would prefer it if the GM role was reduced to soulless robot and scene setter, regardless of system in use and-or constraints already in place.

I once again invite you to actually say who these "some" are. I've read nearly every post in this thread, and haven't seen anyone say anything like what you are suggesting here.

 

[soviet]

The point is, the actual "maker of a trap" is a real human being in our real world. People who laid it are fictional, they don't exist as entities of their own, and start existing only when interacted with by other real humans in our real world. If a tree falls down in a forest...

The value of a trap is the same as any other thing in RPGs: to either create gameplay or provide "colour". A signposted trap does both at the same time, a hidden one does neither.

Given the nature of the medium, the only interface the players have is spoken words. You can create an interesting gameplay of figuring out barely noticeable environmental clues in a videogame (like how mimics in Dark Souls are distinguishable from chests, but only if you are observant enough). You can't do so in a TTRPG. The gameplay of looking for a trap is "OK, I'm going to look for traps". That's it. What's the point of wasting time on such a pointless endeavour?

No, there is a value to traps in a certain kind of play. I agree that 'I roll to detect traps' is empty, mechanistic play. But when I want to run this sort of game (so, like, not Other Worlds or something) I don't revert to a roll like that. Instead I will ask the player what they do - how do you open the chest, go through the door, etc. If they 'guess' correctly, bully for them, they find the trap or secret door automatically. If they don't use proper caution or look in the right place then I will use detect traps or an equivalent reflex check to 'save' against it in the nick of time. This can be an effective technique for building suspense and improving immersion/verisimilitude.

There is certainly a tension here between 'this is a colourful bit of exploration that improves my game' and 'I have just conditioned my players to closely examine every object in the world for fear of a gotcha'. So I don't generally make my traps too complex or well hidden, and I am pretty liberal in terms of what counts as accurate searching (so no pixel bitching about 'you should have turned it counter-clockwise', and so on), and just as importantly I am clear in my signposting about when such caution might be appropriate and when it might not ('yeah you open it fine, there don't seem to be any traps or anything'). I might give false positives sometimes (asking about approach when it's not relevant) but never any false negatives (traps completely out of nowhere).

 

[soviet]

I once again invite you to actually say who these "some" are. I've read nearly every post in this thread, and haven't seen anyone say anything like what you are suggesting here.

I'm going to log out and view the thread again, because I can only assume that there are a bunch of people hating on traditional games and calling GMs big meanie-heads who have blocked me so I can't see their posts.

 

[loverdrive]

No, there is a value to traps in a certain kind of play. I agree that 'I roll to detect traps' is empty, mechanistic play. But when I want to run this sort of game (so, like, not Other Worlds or something) I don't revert to a roll like that. Instead I will ask the player what they do - how do you open the chest, go through the door, etc. If they 'guess' correctly, bully for them, they find the trap or secret door automatically. If they don't use proper caution or look in the right place then I will use detect traps or an equivalent reflex check to 'save' against it in the nick of time. This can be an effective technique for building suspense and improving immersion/verisimilitude.

I can see gameplay in disarming a trap, fiddling with levers and mechanisms, all that, but not so much in looking for one.

And in any case, "hey, this is a chest, and it is trapped, your akaviri danger sense is tingling like crazy" would invite players towards interaction better than staying silent, I think.

 

[clearstream]

The point is, the actual "maker of a trap" is a real human being in our real world. People who laid it are fictional, they don't exist as entities of their own, and start existing only when interacted with by other real humans in our real world. If a tree falls down in a forest...

The value of a trap is the same as any other thing in RPGs: to either create gameplay or provide "colour". A signposted trap does both at the same time, a hidden one does neither.

I feel like the point is closer to "what counts as legitimate to say next." You have a purpose in mind which seems something like "create gameplay or provide colour for the players". An immersionist purpose prioritises the "portray a rich world" over "punctuate their lives with adventure". Both can satisfy "play to find out what happens."

The tree that falls in the forest can be an imagined fact that is external to the players, thus it is an objective fact from their point of view. The citadel of Trilus is like that in Glorantha. It's of no consequence if players know about it or not: it's an established fact.

Perhaps another facet of immersionist mode is that there is intended to be one or more participants who individually establish facts that are objective from the point of view of other participants. Part of their play is to establish those facts. The play of others explores those facts incompletely. Asymmetrical roles.

Given the nature of the medium, the only interface the players have is spoken words. You can create an interesting gameplay of figuring out barely noticeable environmental clues in a videogame (like how mimics in Dark Souls are distinguishable from chests, but only if you are observant enough). You can't do so in a TTRPG. The gameplay of looking for a trap is "OK, I'm going to look for traps". That's it. What's the point of wasting time on such a pointless endeavour?

The satisfaction of inhabiting a world that isn't all about my character. There is also a sort of latency in those established facts that makes the world for me feel richer. A hidden fact may inform another hidden fact that may inform something we find out in our play.

It's possible to take a shortcut or even backcast (find out X in your play, and extrapolate hidden facts from it... "If the Queen is really the half-sister of Q, why that means she must be the daughter of... !") It's not really all or nothing, but some modes will prefer more shortcuts and backcasts for the reasons you outline, and other modes will find those potentially suspension-of-disbelief breaking. There's may be some consistency concerns, too.

 

[Oofta]

Well, what can I say, skill issue. Git gud.

Suspension of disbelief is an active process, not some kind of line in the sand.

So ... I dislike something. Something in games I don't need to play when there are far more popular options available. Your answer is "get over it because I know better"?

Why do you think you get to tell me or anyone else what to like or what games to play?

 

[loverdrive]

So ... I dislike something. Something in games I don't need to play when there are far more popular options available. Your answer is "get over it because I know better"?

Why do you think you get to tell me or anyone else what to like or what games to play?

Your "preferences" aren't preferences. They are you coping with being bad at games.

Nothing is "less" or "more" immersive, nor can possibly be. Immersion is a skill, that can and should be practised and improved.

 

[Oofta]

@loverdrive was very clear about her reason for preferring a GM roster: it makes the combat part of the game more like a wargame or video game, and hence increases the scope for players to play skilfully. Whether or not you agree with that reason, it's a perfectly clear one.

It's also something I don't need in my leisure time. If you like having a roster, making your TTRPG into more of a wargame and focus on skill play, fine. Doesn't make it better for everyone. Doesn't make it better for me. Sometimes the PCs know a fair amount of detail, sometimes they don't. Frequently it's also completely irrelevant because I don't run D&D like a wargame.

I played in a campaign a while back where we were part of a revolution. We were responsible for a fair amount of it, funding and taking out enemy special forces. The goals we had, the missions we went on were all in support of that revolution. What we didn't get too caught up in was logistics and day-to-day command. We hired people for that because we didn't want to play the most recent Total War game we wanted to play D&D.

Or I'm just completely missing something which is entirely possible.

 

[Oofta]

Point of Discussion: We've established in the prior discussion in this thread that this isn't the case, whether we subscribe to Rule 0 or not. Game rules can always be removed or altered. If you also believe that the GM has no constraints, that also extends to their ability to remove game rules. The game may suffer as a result of those changes, but that's a different matter than the rote point of whether the rules can be changed.

Well, first, my eyes glaze over occasionally so I may well have missed some aspects. There's a lot going on.

However, I would say that some rules can be abandoned or altered. People do it all the time. But you can't remove all rules because then it's just story hour. But even story hour has rules for how we conduct ourselves, just not officially written ones. But that's a quibble.

You know that you are reading a book and watching a TV show. You have not lost your sense of being a meatbag. Likewise, you as a meatbag player see and hear your GM make a roll or two as they open the Monster Manual behind the screen while your characters are delving a dungeon. Do you choose to ignore what the GM is doing? Does having an awareness of what the GM could be doing interfere with your immersion? Why or why not?

For similar reasons I don't watch "Behind the Scenes" shows. How, occasionally, I have to remind myself not to focus on the symbols on the page when I'm reading a book. Not sure I can describe it better but I have to tell myself to immerse myself in the story and wonder if the TV show is on a soundstage or if they rented a house and if they rented a house where they had to set up cameras. Heck, I don't even really care for interviews with actors when they go into details of how the sausage is made.

Likewise, even if you know that rolls and moves constrain the GM, would you be able to tell in the case of the 16 HP Dragon? Maybe you would; however, in my own experience, I was too engrossed in the game fiction of similar situations to notice anything other than what my character was doing and what was going on in the surrounding fiction. As the PbtA adage goes, "to do it, do it," and I was too busy "doing it" by engaging myself with the fiction.

But what I don't know is that the GM won't make a hard move that would violate the principles of the game. That dragon could be a sock puppet for all I know and perhaps when I roll low on that perception check and the DM just gives that smile and says I don't notice anything it's part of the fun of the game. Even if the DM is just messing with me.

Why are you not equally concerned when people in this thread state that a lack of controls on the GM is a universal good with no explanation and asserted as truth?

Because I'm not saying lack of controls on a DM is a universal good. I'm saying different games work differently and different aspects of games will work better for certain people.

B/X (and OSE) provide a fair amount of constraints on the GM as does OSR for that matter. Even if the GM is hypothetically sans contraintes, the GM has some pretty tight expectations for how they should run the game, because B/X is honestly a fairly focused game.

It's been a while, but I don't remember significant restrictions as actual rules to follow. Certainly not ones the players knew. There's guidance, just like the current rules. But it's not like we paid all that much attention to the rules back when.

The OSR community does acknowledge that nothing technically binds the GM's authority. The OSR community also eschews balanced encounters. On the other hand, the OSR community does value things like "skilled play," which does require the GM to respect and honor when the players' skilled gameplay overcomes their prep. The GM is expected to restrain themselves there and not just streamroll the PCs because the players "ruined" the GM's prepped ideas and encounters. OSR also tries to put in safeguards that constrains the GM's ability to railroad the PCs or to force GM pre-authored story on them: e.g., random tables, non-linear dungeons, wandering monster checks, etc.

I don't have any insight into the OSR community. Different people run their games differently. Good.

More condescension.

Well you say things I consider blindingly obvious and pretty much mansplaining (postersplaining?) what I've been saying I get a little sarcastic.

If you would like, I or others could either tell you more about some of these games or point you in the direction of threads, videos, or articles where these are discussed in greater detail. I can share now that my own experience of going from GMing more traditionally-structured games like D&D or CoC to games like Dungeon World/Stonetop or Blades in the Dark was that it demanded a lot of me as a GM in the moment since you don't necessarily have the same sort of prep to fall back on since you are reacting to the PCs from moment to moment and scenario to scenario.

I've read articles, I've read rules. An actual play stream might be interesting.

But I think a fair amount of "What I prefer" is getting interpreted as "You're having bad-wrong-fun". Or that if I ask or try to clarify that I'm stating "this is how your game works". Now, I'll be the first I have to get better at how I say things, but most of the time if I ever said "this is how your game works" the problem is I wasn't as explicit as I should have been that I'm just trying to restate my understanding of how it works. That's why an in-person conversation works better.