D&D General How much control do DMs need?

[EzekielRaiden]

I was thinking these over from a resolutely immersionist perspective. The second one reminded me of events in an RQ campaign<snip>

Thus, I believe it works out fine in that mode to have things in play that have nothing to do with the characters.

I gave it as an example of unfairness specifically because the person who tried to find any other solution was told "nope, and because you didn't roll for initiative, your character is now dead." Because that's exactly what is unfair about it. The idea that there just is a dragon, like, around? Sure, that's fine. Useful as "previews of coming attractions," so to speak. The unfairness is specifically in the "you get no choice, it's attacking you, and trying to reason with it is like trying to reason with a pyroclastic flow. You die." Perfectly supported by the fiction, no rules (as far as I'm aware!) that would in any way limit the 5e DM from doing it.

This might be like your third case, which I see as borderline (not at all okay in some modes, okay in others.) In fact, the problem in your third case is most likely a lack of alignment on what kind of campaign is being played, which can easily lead to dissatisfaction.

Again, I don't really understand what "alignment" there can be here. The rational conclusion of "we specifically eliminated the skeleton army for the purpose of taking forces away from the necromancer" is that the necromancer won't have skeletons to draw upon. Arguing that she raided the dead from a recent fire is, pretty clearly, a fig-leaf excuse to simply ignore the party's efforts. Hence: unfair. The necromancer will have whatever forces she needs, whenever she needs them. It's worse than quantum ogres; it's Reinforcements As The Plot Demands.

The second case would be more like - "a giant glowing bat with Lunar priests on its back drops on you and eats you." We've discussed a similar case under 5e before and depending on how you understand certain rules, it's not something that can happen in 5e. At most you get "a giant glowing bat with Lunar priests on its back drops on you and... roll initiative."

Which rules are those? Because I'm not familiar with anything that would even imply this, let alone actually do it. Note that the fig-leaf excuse, here, is that the player didn't immediately roll for initiative, so it "resulted" from their "choice" as a player. Even though that choice was literally just to ask if something was possible. (See: comments in this very thread about how, if you say it with your human voice, your character says it.)

Your first case I feel relies on helping oneself to the psychological state of Pat. One could help oneself to a different state

I was using the example provided, which involved a player being caught by surprise. That the assassin guild thing happened (but not, strictly speaking, that it killed the character) was something totally unknown to the player, and from context not exactly a welcome surprise.

I had something like that in an FKR once, and we had a clear social-contract up-front that it was a gloves-off game involving a lot of political intrigues and outright assassinations... including in your sleep if you vexed the wrong people and didn't look to your security!

No such contract was mentioned in the example given.

In a sense, there the setup or soft move is a meta-move: we as a group established an intent to play in a way that put hard moves based on hidden-information on the table. I can easily picture a PbtA game design that does exactly that. Some mightn't like it, and some might reject the notion of meta-moves, of course. You could also note the "vexed the wrong people" and "didn't look to your security" which certainly put it in player hands... but then there were some hidden laws that players didn't start the game knowing, only knowing they existed, and breaking one of those could also lead to a hard move.

No, I don't think that's even remotely compatible with PbtA in this form, because it specifically relies on off-screen prep that the players did not, and effectively could not, know about. If, on the other hand, it were known that Jareth had ties to an assassin guild, then perhaps--especially if the game's tone is more Game of Thrones-y, gritty nihilistic action. But having the assassin just show up out of nowhere without warning because the DM's prep said stuff the players didn't (and couldn't) know? Nope.

"Meta-moves" are not a thing in PbtA. That's explicitly against one of the principles: "Start and end with the fiction." E.g., the example of the "the party doesn't know there's a demon two levels down that just got alerted"? It only happens because a player flubbed a move. A "meta-move" doesn't start (and, often, doesn't end) with the fiction--and is therefore not acceptable. It also, in the example situation given, doesn't permit playing to find out what happens.

 

[Oofta]

"Meta-moves" are not a thing in PbtA. That's explicitly against one of the principles: "Start and end with the fiction." E.g., the example of the "the party doesn't know there's a demon two levels down that just got alerted"? It only happens because a player flubbed a move. A "meta-move" doesn't start (and, often, doesn't end) with the fiction--and is therefore not acceptable. It also, in the example situation given, doesn't permit playing to find out what happens.

One thing I find interesting - and it's not a criticism or saying that PbtA does it wrong - is this statement. It's just contrary to what I want to do with a living world.

For example my previous campaign concluded a few years before the current campaign but was set in a different region. I'm still noodling a bit here and there on what's going on in that region. It's entirely possible, based on the way that previous campaign ended that an invasion of the region the current campaign is in could be invaded. If it did, an invasion from a foreign entity would happen without warning which could be interesting. Would sparring factions join together to fight off a common threat? Would the PCs come home to a smoking ruin of a town because they weren't there when the invasion happened?

It certainly wouldn't have anything to do with the fiction of the current campaign, it has to do with the fiction of the world at large that could have direct and significant impact on the PCs. I ultimately decided not to pursue it and it goes into the dustbin of DM notes that may arise from the dead at some future point.

But to me potentially having fiction that occurs outside of the sphere of influence of the PCs impacting the game, while rare, is part of the fun of having a persistent world. On a smaller scale, there are a few actors that have not had the spotlight for a while but that doesn't mean they don't exist. They can easily recur or have an impact. Probably not a sniper shot to the head because that's not what I've established with my players, but certainly something unexpected that happens because of the ongoing timeline in the player's home base city. I kind of like that freedom.

 

[Aldarc]

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?

IMHO, loverdrive is a bit abrasive with their argument here. But if I understand her correctly, part of the idea behind "git gud" is less "get over it because I know better," but, rather, "get better because you can get better."

"Git gud," FYI, is the common retort that a (often new) player gets from others players when they complain that they can't do certain challenging video/compter game content. There is a tendency from some player to blame the game, sport, or hobby for being too challenging rather than admitting that they are not skilled enough. It's often insulting and derogatory but there is also some truth behind it.

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.

But that's when we pretend that the game is using invisible rulebooks.

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.

Sure. I acknowledge that you don't like watching "behind the scenes" for shows or movies. I acknowledge that you don't want to focus too much on the symbols of the page when reading a book. However, what I am asking here is about how you deal with that when it comes to GM doing their magic behind the GM screen.

You hear and see the GM make rolls, consult their books and notes, or even ask you questions that are pretty indicative of impending trouble: e.g., "what's your AC again?" You're no dummy. You have been behind the screen yourself. You know how the D&D sausage is made. How does clear and present GM activity in a game like D&D action affect your immersion?

Also, let me ask another question. If you had no knowledge of how/when the GM made soft or hard moves in a game like Dungeon World, would you notice when playing? Would ignorance be bliss for you?

Side Note: I enjoyed the Beach Boys. The music sounded great and fun. But I gained a much greater appreciation for the music after I saw some Behind-the-Scenes clips for a number of the songs for Pet Sounds. Until then, I had only the faintest idea how elaborate the actual musical layering was with their instrumentation. I came to love some of their songs even more because I could better hone my ears to listen to certains parts and instruments.

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.

Sure, and a GM in D&D could do almost entirely the same, with or without any constraints. Why won't the GM in D&D do the same? Why do you not trust the Dungeon World GM to play their role in good faith?

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.

It's a pity, but there was an old Google+ thread, which @pemerton linked before, from Luke Crane (Burning Wheel, Torchbearer) that involved playing B/X according per RAW. Playing B/X and other "old school" versions of D&D per RAW was also what helped lead to the development of "philosophical OSR" and OSR play principles beause it was really a point when people looked back at B/X and asked, "what does gameplay look like if we treat B/X as a purposefully designed game?" The general consensus that emerged was, much as I said prior, that B/X was actually a tightly designed game that worked remarkably well when played according to its rules and principles.

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

(1) So you should be able to sypathize when @soviet makes a point that they may also feel is blindingly obvious: i.e., some of the critics of less restricted GM authority are GMs themselves.

(2) This is a pretty egregious misuse of the term "mansplaining." But it would probably be advisable to drop that.

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.

Would you like a play stream that showcases the rules or one where it's minimally referenced?

 

[Oofta]

IMHO, loverdrive is a bit abrasive with their argument here. But if I understand her correctly, part of the idea behind "git gud" is less "get over it because I know better," but, rather, "get better because you can get better."

"Git gud," FYI, is the common retort that a (often new) player gets from others players when they complain that they can't do certain challenging video/compter game content. There is a tendency from some player to blame the game, sport, or hobby for being too challenging rather than admitting that they are not skilled enough. It's often insulting and derogatory but there is also some truth behind it.

They just literally told me that I was bad at gaming. That's an insult, I don't care how you try to spin it.

But that's when we pretend that the game is using invisible rulebooks.


Sure. I acknowledge that you don't like watching "behind the scenes" for shows or movies. I acknowledge that you don't want to focus too much on the symbols of the page when reading a book. However, what I am asking here is about how you deal with that when it comes to GM doing their magic behind the GM screen.

You hear and see the GM make rolls, consult their books and notes, or even ask you questions that are pretty indicative of impending trouble: e.g., "what's your AC again?" You're no dummy. You have been behind the screen yourself. You know how the D&D sausage is made. How does clear and present GM activity in a game like D&D action affect your immersion?

But I don't know what kind of moves the GM is allowed to make. I don't know how many points they've spent because in D&D they have infinite points if they want.

Also, let me ask another question. If you had no knowledge of how/when the GM made soft or hard moves in a game like Dungeon World, would you notice when playing? Would ignorance be bliss for you?

Perhaps. But ... it's like in D&D where I don't want the DM fudging dice to save my PC. If they roll three crits in a row and it kills my PC? Well, that's just kind of the way the game works. If I'm facing a foe I can't defeat, perhaps I'll run, perhaps I'll try to keep their focus on me so others can flee even if it means valiantly sacrificing myself. I'm not saying other games can't do that as well, it just seems less likely in some games.

Side Note: I enjoyed the Beach Boys. The music sounded great and fun. But I gained a much greater appreciation for the music after I saw some Behind-the-Scenes clips for a number of the songs for Pet Sounds. Until then, I had only the faintest idea how elaborate the actual musical layering was with their instrumentation. I came to love some of their songs even more because I could better hone my ears to listen to certains parts and instruments.


Sure, and a GM in D&D could do almost entirely the same, with or without any constraints. Why won't the GM in D&D do the same? Why do you not trust the Dungeon World GM to play their role in good faith?


It's a pity, but there was an old Google+ thread, which @pemerton linked before, from Luke Crane (Burning Wheel, Torchbearer) that involved playing B/X according per RAW. Playing B/X and other "old school" versions of D&D per RAW was also what helped lead to the development of "philosophical OSR" and OSR play principles beause it was really a point when people looked back at B/X and asked, "what does gameplay look like if we treat B/X as a purposefully designed game?" The general consensus that emerged was, much as I said prior, that B/X was actually a tightly designed game that worked remarkably well when played according to its rules and principles.

I only have so much time to spend gaming. I'll play games I know I enjoy.

(1) So you should be able to sypathize when @soviet makes a point that they may also feel is blindingly obvious: i.e., some of the critics of less restricted GM authority are GMs themselves.

(2) This is a pretty egregious misuse of the term "mansplaining." But it would probably be advisable to drop that.


Would you like a play stream that showcases the rules or one where it's minimally referenced?

That's what I asked for if it wasn't clear. It's one thing to read the rules, it's another to see actual play even if I don't have time/opportunity/motivation to play. But I can find a bit of time here and there to watch a bit.

 

[hawkeyefan]

So you're saying different games work differently. Shocking.

All I'm saying is that I like the way D&D works. That I like some of the flexibility D&D provides in setting and tone of the game. That doesn't reflect one way or another on other games. I have no idea why you're having such a conniption about my opinions.

No one is attacking what you like. That’s the problem here. All folks are doing is stating their preferences. And you view that as an attack on yours.

Different games work differently is all anyone is saying, and it makes you so defensive. And then when someone takes moment to explain it, you act like it’s obvious and get dismissive.

If the fact that different games work differently is so obvious, then what’s your problem?

Why do I sense a trap question here?

I don’t know, but none was meant.

It's OK for the setting to be as unfair to the PCs as the PCs are, or can be, unfair to the setting.

How can the PCs be unfair to the setting?

For example, if the PCs can ambush an NPC and kill it without its ever being aware of their presence (which they've often numerous ways and means of doing once they get beyond very low level) then the PCs should be potentially vulnerable to the same being done against them. Which might not answer your question unless you think this example is unfair. I don't.

How do PCs ambush anyone without them being aware of their presence? Your focus on parity between NPCs and PCs overlooks a fundamental aspect… the NPCs are run by a participant who has complete knowledge and significant i fluence over what happens. You are not an equal opponent to the players.

Such an ambush on an NPC requires your permission to even happen.

Ideally, the fiction wins out.

However, I have to accept that not every situation is ideal.

Thank you. This is what I was asking.

Do you see how other people might feel that this is misplaced? That what’s more important is not the made up things but the experience of the actual players?

Especially since most often you can make up an alternative fiction that would suit both the fiction and the game.

 

[Oofta]

No one is attacking what you like. That’s the problem here. All folks are doing is stating their preferences. And you view that as an attack on yours.

Different games work differently is all anyone is saying, and it makes you so defensive. And then when someone takes moment to explain it, you act like it’s obvious and get dismissive.

If the fact that different games work differently is so obvious, then what’s your problem?

Because it was stated as if I haven't been saying that exactly the same thing time and time again.

What makes me defensive is that I'm told I'm a "bad at games" because I don't agree that there is inherent benefits to controls on a GM or some other aspects that other games employ. I'm defensive because no matter how many times I say "I get that it works for you, but it would make the game less enjoyable for me and here's why" I get continually asked "But why?" or "Well it shouldn't matter, get over it."

 

[loverdrive]

They just literally told me that I was bad at gaming. That's an insult, I don't care how you try to spin it.

I mean, you lack a skill critical to playing RPGs — maintaining suspension of disbelief and immersing yourself in the process. There's a term for lacking a critical skill: being bad.

It seems crystally obvious to me.

 

[Aldarc]

They just literally told me that I was bad at gaming. That's an insult, I don't care how you try to spin it.

I'm not trying to spin it. "Git gud" is derogatory. I'm trying to explain it because I thought you misunderstood the point she was making with the phrase.

But I don't know what kind of moves the GM is allowed to make. I don't know how many points they've spent because in D&D they have infinite points if they want.

I'm not sure if I follow what you are saying here. I'm also not sure if I understand how this is more preferrable than the alternative.

I would add that just because you know that the GM will make a hard move against you in Dungeon World, for example, doesn't mean that you necessarily know what they will do: (1) GMs are instructed not to name moves they use, (2) GMs are instructed to begin and end with the fiction; however, (3) the hard move can be obvious if the GM had already established the threat in advance.

For example, the GM tells you that the red dragon is readying itself to breathe fire in your direction. You try to Defy Danger to get out of the way of the impending threat. You fail. You can probably guess what will happen next in the fiction without knowing or caring that the GM must make a hard move.

Perhaps. But ... it's like in D&D where I don't want the DM fudging dice to save my PC. If they roll three crits in a row and it kills my PC? Well, that's just kind of the way the game works. If I'm facing a foe I can't defeat, perhaps I'll run, perhaps I'll try to keep their focus on me so others can flee even if it means valiantly sacrificing myself. I'm not saying other games can't do that as well, it just seems less likely in some games.

I think that your attitude here does actually jive well with a lot of narrative-focused game principles: e.g., "play to find out what happens," "begin and end with the fiction," etc.

There are a lot of narrative-focused games that are pretty anti-fudging since that's "GM Force," which is a pretty big no-no. GMs can't fudge dice in PbtA games or BitD because GMs can't roll. Cam Banks (Cortex Plus/Prime) is a big advocate of openly rolling opposition rolls in front of the group.

That's what I asked for if it wasn't clear. It's one thing to read the rules, it's another to see actual play even if I don't have time/opportunity/motivation to play. But I can find a bit of time here and there to watch a bit.

Sorry. I understand what you were asking for. I am asking you if you would prefer either (1) an actual play that keeps rules references to a minimum or (2) an actual play that explains when rules interactions occur.

I'll see what I can find and get back to you.

 

[Morrus]

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.

I mean, you lack a skill critical to playing RPGs — maintaining suspension of disbelief and immersing yourself in the process. There's a term for lacking a critical skill: being bad.

It seems crystally obvious to me.

You’re being obnoxious. Why you think that wandering around here telling other people they’re bad at games is OK is beyond me, but to be clear: it is not. Please do not post again in this thread.

 

[niklinna]

It isn't flagrantly unrealistic though. No more than any other edition of D&D.

If any prior edition of D&D is your basis for what's realistic, however, then 4e is pretty flagrantly unrealistic.