D&D General How much control do DMs need?

[pemerton]

If you mean that rule zero expresses a commitment, by participants, to follow one particular participant in setting the rules of the game, then the question becomes: is such a commitment actually feasible? And the answer, in the context of a social pastime (cf a tournament or other institutional contex) is No.

That would on-surface entail that GM-power is not feasible. Is that your meaning here?

It's not my meaning and I don't see the entailment, prima facie or otherwise.

Admittedly, I'm not 100% sure what you mean by "GM power", but I take it to mean the GM's capacity to add to the shared fiction. The GM has that power the same as any other participant does: the GM can offer suggestions and the other participants can accept them.

Rules can mediate acceptance of suggestions. They do this if everyone agrees to them. That agreement is (in informal, purely social contexts) voluntary. No one can be bound to agree. They can withdraw their agreement at any time.

Someone, including the GM, can propose a new rule - that is, a new way of mediating acceptance of suggestions. That proposal can be accepted or rejected. But the GM can't have any particular power in this respect. (Cf, eg, a tournament organiser.) In this sort of informal context there is no scope for (what Hart would call) secondary rules eg rules of change. (And as Hart explains, introducing such rules is part of a process of institutionalisation.)

 

[hawkeyefan]

A more general restatement of what you are asking is - can there be such a thing as unwritten rules? To me the answer is yes. All that's required is for a person to be able to have in mind what they think counts as following the rule, and choose to follow it.

In a sense, all rules have an unwritten complement, which is the rule as interpreted. Any time two people have different ideas about what counts as following the same rule, that's because they have in mind their own unwritten version of the written rule.

As @EzekielRaiden pointed out, there are many advantages to written rules, not least that they are more reliably communicated and taught. This touches on your related question - how will they know about an unwritten rule? The answer is that they will hear about it (in conversations like this one for example,) or see others following it and try to emulate them, or take it as implied by other words in their game text, or even carry it in from their background culture. And probably a host of other mechanisms.

I don't know... I think the lack of actual direction in the rule books themselves is what leads to these discussions. The best place for a Rule Zero, or any other rule, would be the rule book.

 

[pemerton]

Think offscreen too
Just because you’re a fan of the characters doesn’t mean everything happens right in front of them. Sometimes your best move is in the next room, or another part of the dungeon, or even back in town. Make your move elsewhere and show its effects when they come into the spotlight.


@pemerton I think what I'm having trouble with is that the principle above seems to say that player A can trigger a hard move but the GM then has the right to assign that hard move to something either behind the scenes (in his/her notes) or hidden from player knowledge (Some other location, NPC, etc.) and reveal the consequences at some undetermined point in the future. If I'm not grasping this part correctly then please feel free to correct my assumptions here.

You're not grasping this part correctly.

What "think offscreen" means is that, if the GM makes a move (soft or hard) the GM can have the fictional cause of the events be "offscreen".

Following from the above the players could say trigger a hard move (Deal Damage) while exploring an underground cavern and instead of the hard move taking place in the cavern or having something to do with the cavern the GM could instead decide there is an old enemy of the PC at their homebase town and he has set up a position to snipe him with an arrow (Deal Damage) without the player knowing about it... and this, at least as I understand it would be perfectly legal following DW principles.

What you describe is wrong. When a GM makes a move, they make a move. It is part of the conversation. If the move is "deal damage" than the GM says "<such and such happens> and <insert PC name here> takes X damage".

<such and such> can be something "offscreen" (eg a hidden trap, a concealed enemy, even a previous beverage which turns out to have been poison or poisoned).

To clarify more... I don't think the ""when" it's triggered is the question I'm struggling with but the "how" and "when" it's resolution can happens that I'm struggling with. I think @AbdulAlhazred gets the gist of where I'm coming from.

A hard move doesn't get "resolved" - it's not an action declaration. It's just a description of some fiction, and in some cases (like dealing damage) it also triggers a game mechanical notation (like hp loss).

 

[loverdrive]

So effectively it's the table's social contract that enforces the rules. That's not really that different from other games. Even in D&D even if the DM can technically do anything they want, if they have a giant hand come out of the wall and smash a random PC into goo with no chance to survive, the players will let the DM know that it wasn't fair play. In our case, by never having that guy DM another game.

I guess the only real point here is that all games are based on what works for the group. Lines of text in a book cannot enforce what goes on at the table, only the people at the table can. It may be more explicit in some games but I'll go back to the intro of the 5E DMG that no one reads "You’re the DM, and you are in charge of the game. That said, your goal isn’t to slaughter the adventurers but to create a campaign world that revolves around their actions and decisions, and to keep your players coming back for more!"

...what?

— What if the GM makes an illegal move?
— The players will point to the rules and ask how the hell that move was triggered.
— So I guess just like in other games

 

[clearstream]

Rules can mediate acceptance of suggestions. They do this if everyone agrees to them.

Agreed. (Well, minor quibble, they do this for those who agree to them, and to the extent of their agreement.)

That agreement is (in informal, purely social contexts) voluntary. No one can be bound to agree. They can withdraw their agreement at any time.

It's not clear what you mean by informal so I cannot say much about that. I'd differentiate between "can" and "will", putting it instead in terms of their likelihood to. Depending on a number of factors, players are more or less likely to withdraw agreement.

Someone, including the GM, can propose a new rule - that is, a new way of mediating acceptance of suggestions. That proposal can be accepted or rejected. But the GM can't have any particular power in this respect. (Cf, eg, a tournament organiser.) In this sort of informal context there is no scope for (what Hart would call) secondary rules eg rules of change. (And as Hart explains, introducing such rules is part of a process of institutionalisation.)

Have you considered GM-as-institution, which is to say GM-as-authorised by normative factors in the background to given sessions of play?

In any case, how do you square your view with tables where GM very evidently does have particular power in that respect?

 

[Imaro]

You're not grasping this part correctly.

What "think offscreen" means is that, if the GM makes a move (soft or hard) the GM can have the fictional cause of the events be "offscreen".

But that principle specifically states...

Think offscreen too
Just because you’re a fan of the characters doesn’t mean everything happens right in front of them. Sometimes your best move is in the next room, or another part of the dungeon, or even back in town. Make your move elsewhere and show its effects when they come into the spotlight.

It isn't saying to create the cause elsewhere... it's saying make your move somewhere else and show it's effects when they come into the spotlight. To me that's a different beast entirely to what you are claiming.

What you describe is wrong. When a GM makes a move, they make a move. It is part of the conversation. If the move is "deal damage" than the GM says "<such and such happens> and <insert PC name here> takes X damage".

<such and such> can be something "offscreen" (eg a hidden trap, a concealed enemy, even a previous beverage which turns out to have been poison or poisoned).

If this is the case how can one...make a move "elsewhere"? How can one show it's effects at a latter time? What you seem to be stating is a move must both be made and it's effects take place immediately...

A hard move doesn't get "resolved" - it's not an action declaration. It's just a description of some fiction, and in some cases (like dealing damage) it also triggers a game mechanical notation (like hp loss).

Point taken I think I was talking to it's effect being applied.


EDIT: Just to be clear I'm digging at this because there have been times on this board where I have stated that I've run a game and then been told my experiences with that game couldn't have arisen if I had actually run it correctly... or worse I didn't actually play or run the game. To me this is a big example of how that type of situation can arise. I am reading and interpreting these rules (at least as they appear to me) in a totally different way than proponents of this style of play and I'm trying to understand why we are getting totally different understandings here.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

So follow up question, on-surface Mao still works if "change rules" is a rule, and "only GM can change rules" is a separate rule. So again, why does it matter that it is not a rule (rather than mattering that it is not the same rule.)

I'm not sure I understand what you mean by the question. At first I thought I did, but on re-reading, I don't think the meaning I first saw is what you meant. Now I'm not sure what it means. I have a longer reply, but...I think I need to understand what you mean, otherwise I'll just be talking past you.

 

[pemerton]

Have you considered GM-as-institution, which is to say GM-as-authorised by normative factors in the background to given sessions of play?

Yes. And I've rejected it.

Institutions are real social things. In the context of this thread I'm not sure we need to theorise them very deeply - in my own writing I tend to lean heavily on Selznick.

In an informal context among friends, a GM is just another person. This is the contrast to (say) @Oofta's public game, which does have an institution-like character; or a tournament, which relies on a whole institutional infrastructure.

It's slightly reductive to present it in terms of imagined scenarios, but they can be illustrative:

GM says: "The applicable rule here is R" or, perhaps "The outcome here is X."

Player objects: "I thought the rule was P" or, perhaps "Given that the rule is P, shouldn't the outcome be Y?"​

At a public game, or a tournament, the GM can retort "A condition of you participating here is that you go along with my rulings."

What does the GM say in the game among friends? I mean, they can say "You all agreed I'm in charge" but nothing stops the friend saying "OK, well now we un-agree!" It's all consensual. That's at least part of the point of the Lumpley Principle, as I understand it.

In any case, how do you square your view with tables where GM very evidently does have particular power in that respect?

Anyone can do whatever they want, if others go along with it. This doesn't tell us that there is a rule at work.

As Vincent Baker told us, the point of rules in RPGs is to mediate and facilitate agreement over the content of the shared fiction. Positing that someone has the power to unilaterally stipulate the means of mediation, in the absence of institutional context that gives such a suggestion some concrete meaning, is nonsense as far as I can tell.

 

[clearstream]

What does the GM say in the game among friends? I mean, they can say "You all agreed I'm in charge" but nothing stops the friend saying "OK, well now we un-agree!" It's all consensual. That's at least part of the point of the Lumpley Principle, as I understand it.

Nothing stops is here misleading.

 

[clearstream]

I'm not sure I understand what you mean by the question. At first I thought I did, but on re-reading, I don't think the meaning I first saw is what you meant. Now I'm not sure what it means. I have a longer reply, but...I think I need to understand what you mean, otherwise I'll just be talking past you.

You seemed to say that Mao couldn't work if rule-zero was in play, and required rule-can-change-rules* to be in play.

I observed that is equally satisfied simply by ensuring rule-zero is not the same rule as rule-can-change-rules.

*Where "rule-can-change-rules" in your view is a "behaviour".