D&D General D&D as a Curated, DIY Game or "By the Book": Examining DM and Player Agency, and the DM as Game Designer

[Neonchameleon]

It’s one way to look at the division. It clearly isn’t the whole picture.

As long as you accept that the side that's interested in DIY are the inclusionists. And the side that wants to exclude as a default is those who don't want to DIY things. That's far more reflective of the whole picture.

By the author(s) of the setting. That might be the author of a published setting, the DM when running a homebrew setting, or the group as a whole if they are co-creating it.

I think you’ll find there are very few DMs who believe they should be the all-powerful, sole curator. Most are willing to do some amount of collaboration with their players, and many have a back-and-forth with the default assumptions of a pre-published setting and their and/or their players’ desires for the setting.

The argument is, despite hyperbole, between those with a default of including unless there is a very good reason to exclude and those with a default of excluding. I've repeatedly mentioned Kender as an example of those that should be excluded by anyone. Even on Krynn.

Also there's a major difference between a third party and a homebrew. In a homebrew things are the way they are ultimately because you made them that way. The setting is Doylist whatever the Watsonian justifications. If you're making the setting the only reason anything that's not deliberately designed to mess up the setting is excluded is because you say so. And the real world is pretty weird.

And with the level of magic present in D&D wizards are absolutely going to do things. So are gods and clerics. In lower magic games things are different - but D&D (especially in later editions) has very powerful magic.

 

[Snarf Zagyg]

And what I find is that 5e is a system that works well with rulings. "You want to jump over the guard and stab him in the back? Uh... this is pretty challenging (GM mentally sets the DC at 20) but he is drunk so I'll give you advantage - do an acrobatics check!" Player goes "yeeeaaah!!!" and the game moves on.

In other systems you could have issues like "do I get +1 because I have higher grounds?" or "you need a feat to do that".... but not in 5e

I think that 5e's reliance on "rulings, not rules" is what makes it so amenable to easy customization.

OD&D, and to a lesser extent, 1e also did the same thing. The primary difference is that a lot of the "rulings" eventually calcified into published rules - and many of the divergent rules didn't play well together since they were created on an ad hoc basis (hence the issues with the d6 or d20 or d00 for similar things).

 

[Neonchameleon]

I think that 5e's reliance on "rulings, not rules" is what makes it so amenable to easy customization.

Interestingly I find that 5e's reliance on "rulings not rules" makes it actively hard to meaningfully customise at a deeper level than "I did that" because it's clear as mud. You can add things and you can subtract them easily enough because it's got the consistency of blancmange. If I want to customise a game 4e is for me a much better start because the consequences are far reaching, due to a more tightly written ruleset.

 

[Charlaquin]

As long as you accept that the side that's interested in DIY are the inclusionists. And the side that wants to exclude as a default is those who don't want to DIY things. That's far more reflective of the whole picture.

This just isn’t true. There are DIY DMs who include by default and DIY DMs who exclude by default.

The argument is, despite hyperbole, between those with a default of including unless there is a very good reason to exclude and those with a default of excluding.

Now this I do agree with.

I've repeatedly mentioned Kender as an example of those that should be excluded by anyone. Even on Krynn.

Ironically I would not exclude Kender on Krynn. Though I probably wouldn’t run a game on Krynn in the first place.

Also there's a major difference between a third party and a homebrew. In a homebrew things are the way they are ultimately because you made them that way. The setting is Doylist whatever the Watsonian justifications. If you're making the setting the only reason anything that's not deliberately designed to mess up the setting is excluded is because you say so. And the real world is pretty weird.

But there are many reasons you might say so, which may relate to aestecits or theme or tone or any number of other things. The same reasons the author(s) of a published settings might have to include or exclude things from the settings they create.

And with the level of magic present in D&D wizards are absolutely going to do things. So are gods and clerics. In lower magic games things are different - but D&D (especially in later editions) has very powerful magic.

Ok?

 

[tommybahama]

"respect mah authorit-ah v. respect mah agenc-ah" thread that have been popping up like mushrooms in a Bavarian forest after the rain"

Good essay, but I think you misspelled Barovian.

For me it boils down to creating a shared epic narrative by the GM and the players vs mechanics. I want to be the Legolas that leaps onto the troll's back and jabs the Arrow of Slaying into its eye socket. I don't want to leave that epic scene to a contested athletics check followed by an attack roll at disadvantage because I'm within melee range even though I'm using the arrow to make and improvised weapon attack. Oh, and since I argued it's an improvised weapon attack, it only does 1d4 damage instead of a DC17 CON save for 6d10 damage. Arrrrgh!

 

[Neonchameleon]

This just isn’t true. There are DIY DMs who include by default and DIY DMs who exclude by default.

There are. Which is why it's a very different axis and is at best irrelevant to the discussion it spun off.

Ironically I would not exclude Kender on Krynn. Though I probably wouldn’t run a game on Krynn in the first place.

I might even on Krynn. But the only reason I'd run a game on Krynn would be if I was trying to run a "practical atheists" game starting with the assumption that anyone who wants to maintain the "balance between good and evil" is actually evil

But there are many reasons you might say so, which may relate to aestecits or theme or tone or any number of other things. The same reasons the author(s) of a published settings might have to include or exclude things from the settings they create.

But there's one more reason to include than a published author has. A player wants it. Which brings it back to the question of DM authority and whether everyone should kowtow to your wishes as DM or everyone should have the chance to contribute and you are simply first among equals. To me this is a very strong reason to default to inclusionism.

Ok?

It's one of the reasons why inclusion should very much be the default.

 

[Oofta]

I've long realised the difference - and it is not at all the one you are claiming. It's a matter of whether the DM is someone who sits on an almighty throne and everyone else should kowtow to them or whether the DM is the chair and the first among equals but every player at the table is important.

I'm just going to say this once on this thread. Don't agree with a specific style of running the game or the OP? Have a different point of view? Explain your logic and reasoning. There are many, many shades of gray on this topic and you are reducing it to black and white while people who prefer that the DM create a curated world are doing it wrong. Personally I prefer a game that makes sense to the DM whether I'm DM or player. If that means a curated world with strict limits, so be it.

There are many games, many styles, no style will work for everyone.

 

[TwoSix]

It certainly isn't whether it's about whether you DIY. That's nothing more than an attempt to pretend people who are often ardent DIYers don't DIY.

Meanwhile when you say "more curated" the question is curated by whom? The argument isn't whether you can't have a curated experience but whether the DM should be the all powerful sole curator, or whether everyone should have a hand in the curation.

The problem with this framing is that it implies that the one who is making the choice of curation is solely the DM, and is imposing it on the players. That's neglecting the fact that there are a lot of players who are actively looking for the DM to be the one to do the curating. Lots of players have a play expectation that they will be passengers on the DM's carefully crafted railroad.

We do ourselves a disservice trying to build an analytical framework that treats this playstyle as invisible or as degenerate. Maximal DM force is a fully coherent RPG playstyle.

 

[Snarf Zagyg]

I think you’ll find there are very few DMs who believe they should be the all-powerful, sole curator. Most are willing to do some amount of collaboration with their players, and many have a back-and-forth with the default assumptions of a pre-published setting and their and/or their players’ desires for the setting.

I think what I was realizing is that there is a profound difference in the a priori starting points that different people have when they start these conversations, and this is why they get so confusing.

In my conception of what it is to play D&D, it is always a custom game. The DM is the initial "game designer" at the table. That does not preclude player collaboration on building the world through ideas and/or emergent play- it's the best part! But because every game is a custom game, I would never assume that anything (including PHB races or classes) is standard. Now, there are many times that the table might want to play a "standard" D&D game- whether it's a one-shot, or a competition (remember those?), or because that's what the table wants. But I would always go into a situation with the assumption that, at session 0, there will be some DM guidance about the guidelines of this custom game, and that players will design characters within those guidelines.

On the other hand, there are many people who start with the assumption that D&D is always standard; that any deviation from "base" or "core" D&D by the DM needs to be justified. A player should be allowed to create any type of PC, and it is the job of the DM as referee/facilitator to find a place for the PC, so long as the PC was created within the rules.

In the other thread, I just saw that @cbwjm posted this:
Maybe, I have definitely noticed a lot more people nowadays who think that just because something exists in a core book it must exist in game (could easily just be due to the prevalence of forums and social media making it seem like more though). I remember having an argument with people on Reddit who seemingly took offence at my statement that my world didn't have dinosaurs in it. They couldn't grasp that everything in the book is an option and that somewhere in the real world a game was being played where they couldn't polymorph or wildshape into dinosaurs.

And that's where a lot of the befuddlement, for me, came. Because people can yell and scream at each other on the internet; despite the protestations, the actual positions of most people aren't that different.

A: "It's my way or the highway. DM RULEZ"

B: "You're a terrible person. Players should be able to bring any concept, ever, and the DM has to accept it. U A PLAYA HATER!"

A: "That's silly. Besides, at my table, we actually discuss stuff. Not like your table, where people show up and DEMAND that the player gets to play."

B: "No, you're the silly one. Besides, at my table, we actually discuss stuff. Not like you table, where people show up and the DM DEMANDS that the player plays what the DM wants."

etc.

To me, though, I kept noticing that one of the fault lines kept going to the "if it's in the published material, the DM has to use it." Which is something I'm not familiar with; it's just a difference of opinion.


EDIT- by the way, I am not offering this as a be-all, end-all approach to solving the DM Agency/Player Agency "debate." Just a different way of looking at it in terms of D&D.

 

[Charlaquin]

But there's one more reason to include than a published author has. A player wants it. Which brings it back to the question of DM authority and whether everyone should kowtow to your wishes as DM or everyone should have the chance to contribute and you are simply first among equals. To me this is a very strong reason to default to inclusionism.

A player wanting to play a race (or whatever) is indeed a reason one might want to include it. That’s not a reason to include by default, it’s a reason to include on a case-by-case basis. That’s why most DMs are willing to discuss with a player if they want to play an option that they would not otherwise have included. But also, a player wanting to use an option in game is only one reason to include it, and does not automatically outweigh any and all reasons not to include it. It’s something that should be discussed between the player interested in using the option for their character and the DM responsible for creating and maintaining the rest of the world.

It's one of the reasons why inclusion should very much be the default.

I strongly disagree. Again, it’s a reason to include something when relevant, which may or may not outweigh any compelling reasons not to include it.