D&D General How much control do DMs need?

[AnotherGuy]

Whereas suggesting that the purpose of all those mechanics is to create suspense between declaration of action and narration of consequence is not?

Presentation plays a large part on how something may be viewed.
If all one writes that the mechanics in D&D are suggestive - and although that may be considered correct or succinct its likely to receive pushback. And again, if there are actual rules within the PHB is it fair to simply say they are all suggestive?
Is that how you would describe it to someone new to the game? Let us play this game where all the mechanics are suggestive.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

So let's take this chasm as an example.
The DM has introduced it as an obstacle which the PCs must overcome to get to their destination but the PCs have a variety of methods to overcome such obstable.
In @Manbearcat's story now, no myth play-by-post here with two other forum members (@darkbard and @Nephis), the very first scenario presents an obstacle whereby the characters need to convince/intimidate etc the appropriate persons in order to enter a temple. A skill challenge is enacted.
How are these situations different?

EDIT: The Slave and Her Sovereign

Well, as @Oofta pointed out, SCs are pretty rigid in their default format. So you can see this as a bad thing, or you can see it as a good thing. In Story Now play, it tends IMHO to be a good thing. This is because when the PCs in the above scenario are faced with a challenge, the MECHANICS of that are already handled by the rules. It isn't up to the GM how many checks are needed, the DCs, etc. I mean, the GM can choose a bigger or smaller encounter budget (complexity), but that's it! They can pick the primary and secondary skills, but they have to pick some and there's a tightly constrained number of them. Really all the GM is doing here is binding the SC framework to the specific fiction! So, basically, any judgment calls during play notwithstanding, the GAME set up the scenario and determined how tough it would be. The fiction is not ENTIRELY color, because it can do things like disallow some approaches entirely, or suggest alternative ones, but play is very principled by this structure. You can think of the entire level of play (1st level) the same way, there's an XP progression, XP budgets that establish rewards, treasure parcels are spelled out, etc. Nothing is really up to the GM in terms of how that structure works. @Manbearcat can parcel things up, so have different numbers of encounters and SCs and Quests of certain levels that add up to enough XP to advance a level, and can dole out short and long rests, and to some extent milestones. This is far from nothing, but the players are at least guaranteed a certain minimum standard of how things will go that is purely built into the game.

This is all, again, a part of 4e as a Story Now game, the GM can only present things within the structure of the game rules, and the only real variables are the fiction and did the players succeed and what resources did they consume? This structure serves a lot of the same purpose as the agenda and principles spelled out in DW.

 

[Oofta]

Really? You think that check STR (Athletics) is somehow correlated to the physical capabilities of the individual in a way that Defy Danger (STR) is not?

Are you going to explain that?

Terminology doesn't change the fictional narrative.

How would Dungeon World handle it, such that "lower fidelity" is demonstrated?

How would D&D handle the risk of slipping on a patch of loose earth just at the moment of launching oneself into the air?

That's called rolling a 1 on your skill check.

EDIT: I think it's obvious that 99% of the time D&D doesn't handle that risk. Likewise it has no rule for handling the chance of sneezing just as one wants to recite the litany to a ritual.

And I also get the strong impression that you (Oofta) don't have a strong grasp on how DW would handle it.

The two games are very different. The mere fact that you begin "(, the GM, am describing a fictional environment" already shows that you are thinking in5e D&D terms but not DW terms. DW doesn't begin with "describe a fictional environment". The focus of play is not on grasping and engaging a fiction that has been imagined by the GM.

Whether that is a plus or a minus about DW compared to 5e D&D is a matter of taste. But why are you trying to deny the difference? I don't get it - especially in a thread which is all about different roles for and degrees of GM control in RPGing.

In any game there has to be a shared fictional environment. But you're right I don't know how DW works in practice, I've only read the rules. I assumed that part of mapping and setting up location moves included possible obstacles.

In any case, this is going nowhere. I've explained why I like D&D's resolution systems, DM-centric control of the world, the more free form resolutions outside of combat. Don't like how D&D works? I make suggestions on how to improve it, even if I don't believe it needs fundamental change. If you can't accept D&D for what it is, good thing there's other games out there.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

Dungeon Wolrd doesn't need or care about a formula for the distance you can jump. The physical distance across a chasm, the dice of damage a weapon does, as @loverdrive has pointed out elsewhere, have almost nothing to do with whether the chasm represents a salient obstacle, or with how many blows with that sword it takes to kill a foe.

Right, I was just pointing out that a DW danger can be a lot more threatening to one PC than another, so its not like you can't get into a bunch of detail about what the threat is, how does my PC match up against it, etc. I mean, the other obvious example would be combat! A wizard is not going to fare well in a melee with a goblin! The fighter OTOH will probably chuckle has he cuts it in pieces. Frankly I've never missed the whole 'numbers thing' when playing DW, its remarkable how little it actually added to the game! I mean, DW doesn't even have melee rounds, yet combat works fine...

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

Presentation plays a large part on how something may be viewed.
If all one writes that the mechanics in D&D are suggestive - and although that may be considered correct or succinct its likely to receive pushback. And again, if there are actual rules within the PHB is it fair to simply say they are all suggestive?
Is that how you would describe it to someone new to the game? Let us play this game where all the mechanics are suggestive.

I think the point was to point out that this is NOT true in a game like Dungeon World. The rules are quite prescriptive and quite descriptive as well. The description and prescription just don't happen in terms of time units, feet, etc. Instead its "scary deep chasm that might be too wide for me to jump" and that's just as good!

 

[AnotherGuy]

Well, as @Oofta pointed out, SCs are pretty rigid in their default format. So you can see this as a bad thing, or you can see it as a good thing. In Story Now play, it tends IMHO to be a good thing. This is because when the PCs in the above scenario are faced with a challenge, the MECHANICS of that are already handled by the rules. It isn't up to the GM how many checks are needed, the DCs, etc. I mean, the GM can choose a bigger or smaller encounter budget (complexity), but that's it! They can pick the primary and secondary skills, but they have to pick some and there's a tightly constrained number of them. Really all the GM is doing here is binding the SC framework to the specific fiction! So, basically, any judgment calls during play notwithstanding, the GAME set up the scenario and determined how tough it would be. The fiction is not ENTIRELY color, because it can do things like disallow some approaches entirely, or suggest alternative ones, but play is very principled by this structure. You can think of the entire level of play (1st level) the same way, there's an XP progression, XP budgets that establish rewards, treasure parcels are spelled out, etc. Nothing is really up to the GM in terms of how that structure works. @Manbearcat can parcel things up, so have different numbers of encounters and SCs and Quests of certain levels that add up to enough XP to advance a level, and can dole out short and long rests, and to some extent milestones. This is far from nothing, but the players are at least guaranteed a certain minimum standard of how things will go that is purely built into the game.

This is all, again, a part of 4e as a Story Now game, the GM can only present things within the structure of the game rules, and the only real variables are the fiction and did the players succeed and what resources did they consume? This structure serves a lot of the same purpose as the agenda and principles spelled out in DW.

So if I have it right, the introduction of the chasm is not the issue, but rather that the DCs and the number of skill checks required are not prescribed through the game mechanics but rather the DM, and to that end the DM is the final arbiter of what skill is rolled for? Hence @pemerton's suggestive comment.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

In any game there has to be a shared fictional environment. But you're right I don't know how DW works in practice, I've only read the rules. I assumed that part of mapping and setting up location moves included possible obstacles.

It definitely can, maps are a part of DW, they are just 'incomplete' (so that the participants can inject new fiction somewhere). The GM might annotate a map with "hard to jump across chasm" or something to call it out as a danger.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

So if I have it right, the introduction of the chasm is not the issue, but rather that the DCs and the number of skill checks required are not prescribed through the game mechanics but rather the DM, and to that end the DM is the final arbiter of what skill is rolled for? Hence pemerton's suggestive comment.

I think it is assumed that dangers will show up in all this ilk of games and that GMs introduce them. So, no issue with the chasm being introduced, no. In 5e the DCs are entirely up to the GM, yes. I presume they also decide what skill will be used, though I'm perfectly willing to cede that one, as its unlikely the players will let the GM get away with Streetwise... I think in a more general sense of overcoming obstacles the GM in 5e is entirely free to determine how many checks are required, and what kinds, but again may be constrained by a need to not be a dick about it. So probably the GM is stuck with 'Chasm: 20' wide' and thus jump/athletics, a single check, etc.

In contrast a chasm in DW is simply a danger, the PCs jumping across will DD+STR or possibly deploy some other move or resource. The DW version seems less arbitrary, as there isn't really a 'DC' in that game, BUT the GM is pretty free with consequences (within the same sort of stick to the principles kind of considerations).

I think this specific example is probably less illustrative than others might be though, its a pretty simple one.

 

[loverdrive]

Let's rewind the clock to 2002.

This my my [sic] take on the issue.

Let's say Bob the board member makes the assertion: "There is an inconsistency/loophole/mechanics issue with Rule X."

Several correct replies can be given:

• "I agree, there is an inconsistency/loophole/mechanics issue with Rule X."
• "I agree, and it is easily solvable by changing the following part of Rule X."
• "I disagree, you've merely misinterpreted part of Rule X. If you reread this part of Rule X, you will see there is no inconsistency/loophole/mechanics issue."

Okay, I hope you're with me so far. There is, however, an incorrect reply:

• "There is no inconsistency/loophole/mechanics issue with Rule X, because you can always Rule 0 the inconsistency/loophole/mechanics issue."

Now, this incorrect reply does not in truth agree with or dispute the original statement in any way, shape, or form.

It actually contradicts itself--the first part of the statement says there is no problem, while the last part proposes a generic fix to the "non-problem."

It doesn't follow the rules of debate and discussion, and thus should never be used.

Simple enough.

I always thought Rule 0 Fallacy was a well-known concept that bears no need to be reminded, but... I guess I was wrong?

 

[EzekielRaiden]

I think it is assumed that dangers will show up in all this ilk of games and that GMs introduce them. So, no issue with the chasm being introduced, no. In 5e the DCs are entirely up to the GM, yes.

Agreed.

I presume they also decide what skill will be used, though I'm perfectly willing to cede that one, as its unlikely the players will let the GM get away with Streetwise...

Two points. One, I do think that could actually work, but it would require rather a lot of preamble: the chasm isn't just some random place in the wilderness, it is a settled, populated area, and people cross the chasm on various bridges, ropes, jumps, etc. In that circumstance, I could see Streetwise being used for "cross a chasm" when one wishes to do so unobtrusively. But for the usual expectation of "cross a chasm," that is, in the middle of nowhere with no one but the denizens of nature nearby, sure, I could see a problem there.

Two, where is this sense of "let the GM get away with" something? This makes it sound as though the GM is in fact beholden to the players--that they must do things only with player approval. I raise this mostly because it's part of why I don't care for a game embracing the "rules are just suggestions" philosophy. If the rules are just suggestions, there are no limitations on GM behavior. She may behave as she likes, and if the players protest, they must decide either to like it, lump it, or leave. If the players resort to things outside the rules (e.g., social contract, peer pressure, bribery, emotional manipulation), the GM will naturally feel aggrieved because they've had the nuclear option dropped on them. If the players do not, then the players will feel aggrieved because they got the nuclear option dropped on them and have no permitted recourse within the social space.

I think in a more general sense of overcoming obstacles the GM in 5e is entirely free to determine how many checks are required, and what kinds, but again may be constrained by a need to not be a dick about it. So probably the GM is stuck with 'Chasm: 20' wide' and thus jump/athletics, a single check, etc.

Theoretical absolute latitude, which carries such heavy costs no one is willing to use it, vs practical quite constrained latitude, which only allows that which won't ruffle feathers. Hence why some (I think including you?) have noted the advantage of having actual rules one abides by: you're giving up the theoretical absolute latitude in order to gain practical latitude that is much less constrained. In other words, the actual meaning of "social contract" theory, which doesn't really work for IRL politics (since no one consents to the country of their birth, and thus cannot consent to the initial social contract) but works quite well here. GMs agree to give up certain freedoms that they were unlikely to exercise anyway (like the freedom to say "rocks fall, everyone dies" for no reason) in order to secure the rights to doing rather a lot of things that might have set off alarm bells in the "state of nature."

In contrast a chasm in DW is simply a danger, the PCs jumping across will DD+STR or possibly deploy some other move or resource. The DW version seems less arbitrary, as there isn't really a 'DC' in that game, BUT the GM is pretty free with consequences (within the same sort of stick to the principles kind of considerations).

I think this is where the theoretical-absolute vs practical latitude distinction is useful. In theory, the 5e D&D DM has no constraints at all, aka "the rules are merely suggestions." In theory, the DW GM has several constraints, some qualitative ("be a fan of the characters") and others quantitative (you must answer Discern Realities questions honestly.) But, in practice, the 5e DM cannot realistically use the vast majority of their theoretical latitude, because it would upset the players and/or damage the group's game to do so. Contrariwise, the DW GM not only can but is expected to use every ounce of the latitude they are given, to push the envelope ("think dangerous," "think offscreen, too"), drive the action forward ("make a move that follows," "ask questions and use the answers"), and enliven the experience as much as possible ("embrace the fantastic," "give every monster life.")

Both sides have latitude, and it is latitude regardless of whether we consider it in terms of theory or practice. But it definitely looks--as someone who has played both games and run DW quite a bit--like 5e cannot meaningfully capitalize on its theoretical latitude, while DW (or any system Powered by the Apocalypse) almost perfectly capitalizes on all of the latitude it claims to have. To use a pithy business phrase, when it comes to latitude for the coordinating player (DM/GM), 5e over-promises and under-delivers.

I think this specific example is probably less illustrative than others might be though, its a pretty simple one.

The problem with many such things is, without specific detail, the example will be (perhaps rightly) criticized for not being something anyone could actually encounter, or too general to give any information; but with specific detail, the example will be (perhaps rightly) criticized for individual details that are not salient to the discussion, or too specific to permit reasoning from it.

In the spirit, then, of trying to examine salient things, perhaps we can consider other scenes that might be relevant. Picking some that have absolutely no connection whatsoever to any games I may or may not be involved with...

Investigating attendees at a rich-people party, in order to focus later efforts on the most plausible suspects
Persuading a group of steam-spirits to simmer down and permit the party to pass unmolested
Rescuing a time dragon who has gotten "stuck" halfway materialized because of a strange barrier covering the mortal world
Navigating the politics of a foreign nation to identify the real killer in a crime pretty obviously intended to frame a dignitary
Healing a person infected with a spiritually-empowered fungus that wants to integrate her into its hive mind intelligence
Convincing a powerful businessman to come with you, without his bodyguards, to a secret location for reasons you can't strictly specify
Finding a way to pass the initiation rites of a cult of assassins that doesn't involve, y'know, murder most foul
Navigating a monster-infested jungle
Finding the secret room in an ancient ruin
Finding, and then using, a method to destroy a succubus, rather than simply discorporating her so she goes back to Hell

Many of these could be singular checks or complex affairs, but importantly, with DW, the stakes are always clear and the difficulty is always set--by design. With D&D, that is far less true. The DM cannot so easily push the envelope in what and why and how, because the line between "great scene" and "damaging the game" can be perilously thin.