D&D General How much control do DMs need?

[Enrahim2]

Well, in AW the reason that players would look to the GM in this respect is because the rules give the function of establishing consequences to the GM.

Consequences, yes. But how if there is ever anything unclear about the rules? Granted, that situation might be very rare in a well written game; but even in extremely well designed, tested and narrow games like chess there come up tricky rules questions at occasions, requiering referees to make judgment calls in turnament play.

Edit- to take one classic example: you forgot to discuss cocked dice in rule zero. A dice roll come out cocked. What is the gut reflex of a typical DW player? For all D&D players I have met they immediately look quizzically on the DM. For board games they typically ask out in general "what now?".

 

[EzekielRaiden]

I am back! I found it impossible to read everything properly, but I think I have gotten the gist of what has been going on. But there is a point I feel has been a bit hanging. I think @Aldarc made a very strong argument how rule 0 is likely a dead end when analyzing RPGs today in context of real GM power. Indeed the observation that 5ed seemingly do not have it written down in any recognisable form is also very interesting to me.

Certainly; it always was a dead end. The problem is, under its auspices, one side simply wins, and thus has no reason to let it go.

However if rule 0 is actually irrelevant and non-existent, that opens the question-from where do the DM/GM derive the authority and deference they seem to be enjoying in most games with a GM/DM?

Convention. Which is why discussion thereof almost always descends into "don't you TRUST your GM???" and "obviously just don't play with bad GMs" (and yet frequently still quite comfortable using bad player behavior examples)--because the power is now solely rooted in convention, as the limits on said power are also rooted in convention.

I do have limited experience with non traditional GM based games, but in those I have played, the players has in general been looking toward the GM to resolve situations that might arise. This in contrast to my experience with board games where any players having read the rules normally tend to go to the rulebook rather than for instance defer decission to for instance the one that brought the game. In other words there appear to be a different social dynamics at play. I am curious if thise of you that have played in particular a lot of PtBA games with different groups have experienced something similar there?

Technically, I have played PbtA (Dungeon World and Masks) with five groups. Three in which I was a player, two in which I was the GM (one of which is ongoing; next session on Tuesday.) The problem is, the answer to your question is "it's more complicated than that."

The rules themselves do, in fact, say that that is what should happen, at least in Dungeon World (and I'm fairly sure Masks is the same.) That is, these are the three reasons given for making a move in the "Gamemastering" section:

You make a move:

• When everyone looks to you to find out what happens
• When the players give you a golden opportunity
• When they roll a 6-

So, when a player declares their intent to do something and everyone looks to the GM in response, that's time for making a move (usually a soft one.) This isn't, strictly speaking, about resolving anything--that's what the moves themselves are for. Instead, GM moves are usually about advancing the state of play. Adding new complications, threatening the player characters or things they value, revealing something the players would rather not be true, etc. Moves prompted by the first bullet point are all about scene-framing.

My working hypotesis is that the GM authority is inherited trough tradition. As such 5ed and DW are both similarly "tainted" with regard to what role the GM actually plays compared to what is strictly outlined by the written rules. So while DW are modulating this by adressing certain aspects of it, there are still some crucial element of GM authority at play at most tables, even if not immediately recognisable. Even on a table striving for total consensus, there might be unconcious biases toward aligning with the GM.

Tradition, convention, same thing--when it comes to 5e. Dungeon World? Nah. Because the thing you just cited is explicitly what the rules instruct you to do. It is not simply the result of...let's call it "para-game" traditions or conventions. It's explicitly one of the core jobs of the GM to do that thing, and when they do so, to have the Agendas, Principles, and other best-practices advice at the forefront for shaping how and why they do it.

If this hypotesis is right, interesting follow up questions could be around what this authority actually allow for? And if it is indeed possible to say how well a GM based RPG would run without such a social authority to grease the wheels? (Which ties into the original question - to what extent can a GM give up "powers" - is this authority something that would be possible to get rid of? If not, wouldnt still in one way any player contributions be at the GMs mercy on a certai social level?)

These questions are still worth answering, at least in the context of D&D. IMO, the answer to the first one at least is:
This is where my "theoretically vast, practically small" argument comes in. Theoretically this authority allows for almost anything, but in practice the limits have to be self-enforced and pretty strongly so. It's hard to push the envelope and take risks, because the players cannot give or deny consent. It is like trying to have a "dominant/submissive" relationship with no concept of a "safeword" and no ability for the submissive partner to respond to concerns except by breaking off the relationship entirely: in theory the dominant partner could do anything they want, but in practice, they must tread exceedingly carefully to not spook the submissive partner. By comparison, with developed techniques of communicating consent/refusal and actually putting some structure into such a relationship, it becomes infinitely easier to test limits and be adventuresome with one's efforts, because both sides participate in the setup thereof, and the submissive partner is given tools to address missteps before they become harm.

Consequences, yes. But how if there is ever anything unclear about the rules? Granted, that situation might be very rare in a well written game; but even in extremely well designed, tested and narrow games like chess there come up tricky rules questions at occasions, requiering referees to make judgment calls in turnament play.

Edit- to take one classic example: you forgot to discuss cocked dice in rule zero. A dice roll come out cocked. What is the gut reflex of a typical DW player? For all D&D players I have met they immediately look quizzically on the DM. For board games they typically ask out in general "what now?".

That isn't considered a relevant aspect of the rules of the game. That is, the game presumes you already know what the result of a roll is once it is rolled. If you don't, it is not the job (nor the intent) of any PbtA system to tell you how to do that.

And, perhaps more relevantly, DW is not designed for tournament play. That's simply not something it is meant to handle. It's much more personal than that.

 

[pemerton]

Consequences, yes. But how if there is ever anything unclear about the rules?

You talked about "resolving situations as they arise". I took you to be referring to situations that confront the PCs in the shared fiction.

Did you actually mean rules uncertainties or something similar?

A dice roll come out cocked. What is the gut reflex of a typical DW player? For all D&D players I have met they immediately look quizzically on the DM. For board games they typically ask out in general "what now?".

My experience of cocked dice in RPGing is that the GM doesn't play a super-sized role. Eg it might be the GM's die that lands cocked!

 

[Enrahim2]

That isn't considered a relevant aspect of the rules of the game. That is, the game presumes you already know what the result of a roll is once it is rolled. If you don't, it is not the job (nor the intent) of any PbtA system to tell you how to do that.

But isnt this exactly the kind of sitiation both rule zero proponents and critics most commonly point to when they discuss D&D? That the DM need to fill in the blanks that the written rules of D&D do not concern themselves with, like courtly intrigue? In my mind it is exactly these things that is "not relevant aspects of the rules of the game" but is still relevant for practical play that lends value to any notion of the GM having any authority over rules. If we were to limit the discussion to only what each single game ruleset actually decide to actively cover, comparing play of PbtA games and D&D in terms of GM authority become almost pointless as the rules adress completely different aspects of traditional GMing for those two cases.

 

[Enrahim2]

You talked about "resolving situations as they arise". I took you to be referring to situations that confront the PCs in the shared fiction.

Did you actually mean rules uncertainties or something similar?

I am sorry. I expressed myself clumsingly. To my minor defence, I thought the second sentence contrasting to rules would make it clear that rules uncertanties was at least part of what I had in mind. The formulation stands as is in that in D&D DMs tend resolve a wide range of situations, not only rules uncertainties and consequences. They are even infamously some times called upon to resolve personal social issues among participants at the table.

However when contrasting to PbtA games it would have made most sense to clarify that it is resolutions where there is a claim of difference that would be interesting to talk about. And in that regard I guess it is resolution of rules uncertainties and resolution of internal conflicts in world building that is the two big topics that has been raised in this thread that would be interesting to look at from a social dynamics perspective?

 

[clearstream]

But isnt this exactly the kind of sitiation both rule zero proponents and critics most commonly point to when they discuss D&D? That the DM need to fill in the blanks that the written rules of D&D do not concern themselves with, like courtly intrigue? In my mind it is exactly these things that is "not relevant aspects of the rules of the game" but is still relevant for practical play that lends value to any notion of the GM having any authority over rules. If we were to limit the discussion to only what each single game ruleset actually decide to actively cover, comparing play of PbtA games and D&D in terms of GM authority become almost pointless as the rules adress completely different aspects of traditional GMing for those two cases.

I'd like to draw your attention to a possibly mistaken way of thinking that I believed my analysis of rule zero had laid bare. All those things you are contemplating that a GM might do - they are game things, not GM things. That a GM - or any participant - might do. What rule zero does is assign whatever you bundle up into a ball labelled "power" to, exclusively, GM. So when you ask

• What about cocked dice? As a game thing, participants need to decide if they count or not. The can if they like assign that "power" to one participant. That participant may be the GM.
• What about rules uncertainties? As a game thing, participants need to settle on what the rules means. The can if they like assign that "power" to one participant. That participant may be the GM.
• What about control of adversity?
• Etc...

There are no "GM powers". There are game things that participants need or want to decide on, settle, apply, bookkeep, etc. They can bundle those up and assign them to one participant exclusively if they like.

It's fruitful to list out those game things - unpack them in order to see what they are. It may be fruitful to discuss the merits of how they are bundled (is it useful to have cocked die resolution in the same bundle as control of adversity? or is it unnecessary?), albeit with the expectation of confounds around modes, preferences and purposes of play. Similarly it may be fruitful to discuss how power-bundles are best distributed across participants.

To restate in another way. In RPG there are no principles, mechanics or choices that exist solely in virtue of a GM other than those that establish a GM.

 

[pemerton]

But isnt this exactly the kind of sitiation both rule zero proponents and critics most commonly point to when they discuss D&D? That the DM need to fill in the blanks that the written rules of D&D do not concern themselves with, like courtly intrigue?

This is not like the example of cocked dice. You are now talking about how to resolve a situation in the fiction.

The rules of AW are clear on how this is to be done: the players declare actions for their PCs, and if they do it, they do it (ie roll for a player-side move) but otherwise the GM responds by making a move, which is a soft move unless a declared action hands the GM an opportunity on a plate, in which case the move can be as hard and direct as the GM likes.

In my mind it is exactly these things that is "not relevant aspects of the rules of the game" but is still relevant for practical play that lends value to any notion of the GM having any authority over rules. If we were to limit the discussion to only what each single game ruleset actually decide to actively cover, comparing play of PbtA games and D&D in terms of GM authority become almost pointless as the rules adress completely different aspects of traditional GMing for those two cases.

The difference is this: AW has very clear rules on how the GM should respond to any declared action for a PC; whereas D&D doesn't. There's no analogue, in AW, to the "courtly intrigue" blind spot you are pointing to in D&D.

I guess it is resolution of rules uncertainties and resolution of internal conflicts in world building that is the two big topics that has been raised in this thread that would be interesting to look at from a social dynamics perspective?

Well, I don't think there are rules uncertainties in AW. Has anyone pointed to any? The rulebook provides examples of rules application - pertaining to player-side moves - and these assume that all participants are responsible for correlating fiction and moves. It's clear, for example, that player "take backs" are permitted if a player was confused about whether a particular action would count as "doing it" (one example I'm thinking of involves a player describing their PC as pushing past a NPC, the GM saying "OK, so you're going aggro", and the player then clarifying "No, if they really don't want to let me past then I'll go the other way").

I'm not sure what you mean by "internal conflicts in world building". Do you mean "internal to the group of participants"? Or do you mean contradictions in world building? AW has reasonably clear procedures for the former. As far as the latter are concerned, it takes for granted that the participants will conform to the established fiction and thereby, in general, avoid such contradictions; and it doesn't specify any particular procedure for rectifying contradictions that inadvertently occur and then come to light. But the examples given throughout the rulebook, which involve (among other things) take-backs like the one I described above, and provide numerous examples of the GM asking questions and building on the answers, strongly suggest that this would be resolved via some process of table consensus.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

But isnt this exactly the kind of sitiation both rule zero proponents and critics most commonly point to when they discuss D&D? That the DM need to fill in the blanks that the written rules of D&D do not concern themselves with, like courtly intrigue? In my mind it is exactly these things that is "not relevant aspects of the rules of the game" but is still relevant for practical play that lends value to any notion of the GM having any authority over rules. If we were to limit the discussion to only what each single game ruleset actually decide to actively cover, comparing play of PbtA games and D&D in terms of GM authority become almost pointless as the rules adress completely different aspects of traditional GMing for those two cases.

Determining what to do with a canted die? No, I don't think I've ever heard of that--or even things like that--being used as an example of applying Rule Zero. I don't see any connection at all between that and inventing rules for intrigue. I don't think I've ever read a game that specifies anything about how to adjudicate dice that land weirdly--because that's just beneath the notice of all rules. Even legit actual boardgames rarely do that.

Maybe it's just a matter of the example chosen. I personally think that that's...well, it's a demonstration of the aforementioned stuff about how "change the rules" is merely a basic behavior that ALL people-who-play-games engage with.

I disagree that this means we can't say meaningful things by limiting ourselves to what each game intentionally does. We can draw significant contrasts and ask what results from those intentional choices. For example, I mentioned earlier that DW simply isn't made for tournament play. I had never considered the question before, but I absolutely think that it's true. That would be an intentional limitation of DW. One of my problems with many invocations of "Rule Zero" is that it usually is used to cover unintentional limitations of the game in question, and that's a very major difference.

 

[Enrahim2]

Determining what to do with a canted die? No, I don't think I've ever heard of that--or even things like that--being used as an example of applying Rule Zero. I don't see any connection at all between that and inventing rules for intrigue. I don't think I've ever read a game that specifies anything about how to adjudicate dice that land weirdly--because that's just beneath the notice of all rules. Even legit actual boardgames rarely do that.

No, it is not used as a rule zero example. The connection I propose is that the idea that the DM has ultimate control over the rules has had effect on how players behave in the cocked dice situation. It is hence a potentisal symtom of covert GM authority over rules. I have observed qualitative difference with how groups of people approaches the conondrum of the cocked dice in boardgames and in D&D (including instances with the same group, so it cannot simply be ayributed to what kind of people typically play D&D vs board games). My question is how this conondrum is commonly approached in PbtA games?

Another connection is that both are things that come up in actual play, and need to be resolved despite there are no rules support for them in D&D. My reply was adressing an attempt of reducing the scope of discussing PbtA to things covered by the PtbA rules, which would be unfair to D&D if you insist on critizising it for not covering courtly intrigue in rules (beyond "DM decides").. (it can however be argued that it is much more important to cover fiction situations like courtly intrigues than cocked dice in a ruleset, but I think that become a completely different discussion)

One reason courtly intrigue is much more discussed is that it is much more controversial, complex and having less known "standard solutions". Few really care enough to discuss what to do with the cocked dice, and are more then happy to let a GM decide any standard solution to it there is (reroll, look from above, move the surface etc)

 

[Enrahim2]

Well, I don't think there are rules uncertainties in AW. Has anyone pointed to any?

I think this is the claim that is hard to swallow. A text of any significant length without any ambiguities is in itself basicaly inconceivable to me. And even if such en incredible feat of language was acheived, human errors like misreading, incorrect memory and pushing the limits is bound to cause situations in actual play where two persons are having different idea about the rules of the game.

So even if it is not possible to point to any concrete uncertainties in the rules of AW, it make sense to ask what is the standard modus when uncertanties arise in play? You make a solid argument that the rules text do encurage balanced consensus building the same way I observe such usually is handled in board games. My question is - is that what is actually observed "in the wild" - in actual play? I dont know as I have not had enough actual play experience with these systems. However I think a lot of those being suspicious about the claims regarding how well GM - RPG work wihout GM authority over rules are tied to the suspicion that there is indeed some covert GM rules authority going on in the success stories. Solid confirmation that even the cocked dice situation is indeed commonly handled trough board game like consensus building without any asymetric involvement of the GM as "mediator" or "moderator" I think would indeed adress those concerns at least to some extent.