D&D General How much control do DMs need?

[Imaro]

It's an open question whether it's yet become the default playstyle.

What's not in question is that WotC would sure like it to become the default.

Eh, I'd argue they don't care if it's the default playstyle or not as long as the adventures sell... regardless of how they're being used.

 

[Lanefan]

I'm not who you asked, but for me it's:

From your summarised description, I would say the characters in your campaign are subordinate to the adventure, but I admit there are many unknown factors in my basing my opinion some of which are:

• What is the risk of perma death;

1. High to very high at low levels, slowly decreasing as levels advance and revival effects become available/affordable but never reaching zero.

• Can the adventure be interrupted to fulfil a character arc;

2. Maybe. See point 4 below.

• Can the adventure be altogether abandoned;

3. Yes, and has been on occasion for a variety of reasons not always character-arc-related.

• Is a character permitted to sabotage himself or the adventure for character reasons. i.e. For instance in my current campaign, the cleric was suffering from a crisis of faith (established through the course of play over many sessions) and it so happened that during a rather pivotal part of the story he "sabotaged" his character whereby he had limited usefulness in an encounter with a BBEG (i.e. he had not prayed for his divine spells).

4. Yes, and this ties into 2. above; in that a player is always free to pull a character out of an adventure in order to fulfill a character arc and-or is also always free to try talking the rest of the players/PCS into coming along. As for sabotaging self or adventure for character reasons, yes: if it's what the character would do, do it.

All that said, however, abandoning or delaying an adventure might or might not have setting-based consequences down the road.

 

[Lanefan]

Assuming this all is being done ahead of time (and I've played/GMed in such a setting that was built collaboratively prior to play) it's not a problem because any conflicts can be resolved prior to play. A solo GM is just as likely to have conflicting details that need to be ironed out at some point. I'd say that such conflicts are more obvious when others are involved... a solo worldbuilder is much less likely to see his own mistakes, such as they are.

As for what's left to explore, I don't think any world is 100% set ahead of time. There are always things to explore. Alternatively, maybe play can be about exploring something other than the map.

Well if players are uninterested in this, that's one thing. If that's what the group is expecting, then there's no reason to do it any other way. The thread is about what's "needed"... so that will vary by group, but aside from preference, I think it's clear that the GM need not have total control over the setting.

Setting preferences aside... because I could just as easily say if I built an entire setting with no input from my players and then brought it to them their reply would probably include "Why didn't you involve us in this?"... not much is needed to begin play, and the players can contribute to both the setting and the direction of play.

You'\re assuming I even know who the players will be when designing the setting - hint, I don't! I started design work on my current setting about a year before presenting it to any prospective players (though I did run a quick one-off during that time with a couple of keeners to field-test some rule changes).

I've no idea who if anyone will be playing in the setting...and even less idea who if anyone will be playing in it ten years later. And I'm not going to sign up players and then keep them waiting for a year while I bang out the setting. (it's easier now with tech, but time was I'd spend weeks working on a single map)

I don't expect that this kind of stuff will amount to all that much. Even the way you describe it, it sounds entirely secondary. Stuff that you fit in between the real stuff... the adventures.

The adventures are the main focus of play, I'm not even trying to dispute that. But they're not the only focus.

No it doesn't depend on one's approach. My comment was that teh D&D team would be wise to formalize the idea of session zero, and that they should advise against GMs and players creating too much on their own before hand. I think this advice is a good idea.

I think the bolded great player-side advice but awful GM-side advice.

Certainly folks like you or I who have been gaming for decades don't need to be told it's okay to try and one-up Tolkien with the world building. I don't think that's what we should be telling folks who are newer to the hobby, or who want to learn how to GM.

Wouldn't it be light-years better to give them pointers, guidelines, and shortcuts on how to do that worldbuilding than to tell them not to bother? (though I suppose if WotC want to sell more canned settings, then telling them not to bother would be a good step to take)

 

[hawkeyefan]

A key observation is that the DMG is only meant to be known by one player, and are also very clearly stated to be guidlines and suggestions rather than rules. It hence serves no role in setting expectations as to what the activity would entail when inviting players to "play D&D".

I don't think I agree with that. I mean, I get why you say it, but how many people try their hand at GMing? I know it's not all players, but certainly enough that such an expectation is unrealistic.

More importantly, the DMG is the book for the DM, who is going to be adjudicating interaction with NPCs. It's the source of guidance for DMs. The process is clearly described... but no support for it is given in any way.

Let me put it this way. If each NPC in an adventure, if each monster entry in one of the monster books, were given Traits, Ideals, Bonds, and Flaws, along with maybe the occasional suggestion about how such can be leveraged by players.... do you think that the rule would see more use than it currently sees? If the DMG offered this as a rule without preceding it with a wormy paragraph like "some people like this, some like that, some people like to do a little of both" how much more attention would be paid to it?

Imagine if combat rules were equally mushy. Would that help the game?

However the players handbook is the one book assumed to be available to everyone, and hence what is written in it is the basis of what can be reasonably expected when a group of people agree to "play D&D". This hence provide the baseline expectations. Deviations from what is written in that book should in general be clarified up front, or else you can be accused of deception.

Again, I disagree. Not because I think what you've said is wrong, but instead because based on what's in the PHB, there is no baseline for some key aspects of play.

Obviously, it gives a good idea of a lot that can be expected, absolutely, but I also think there are significant blank spots which if not addressed can lead to mismatched expectations by participants.

Character creation, combat rules and content with defined interactions with these two subsystems make up the wast majority of every PHB. This is why I consider them key situations.

Agreed.

How would you feel about them if they were less clear? I mean, I know many folks who hate milestone leveling because it basically leaves it entirely up to the GM when you level, and I can totally understand that criticism.

However there also typically are some other minor things like overland travel speeds and the light and duration characteristics of a torch. As at least minor changes to these are unlikely to have drastic effect on play, and their not so prominent place in the PHB, I think most groups will be fine with rule zeroing on these - as long as the changes is not obviously drastically changing the nature of play as advertised.

And I think the notion of advertisement is critical here. If someone join a game without knowing more about it than "we are a group playing D&D, come join!" You really do not know much about what they are doing. Hence follow up info like "we play this adventure" or "we do a home brew setting" or " we play in a colaborately created setting" is commonly expected to narrow the expectation. Indeed we have invented special vocabulary to communicating further narrowing of the activity like "pillars of play" balance, degree of character focus or "hexcrawl" vs "pontcrawl" vs "dungeon crawl". And while each of these qualifiers help with setting proper expectations for how the game will be, it is hard to compete with an entire book where an author has put their mind to accuratly trying to describe a style of play trough mechanics..

Sure being upfront about all this stuff is an important element. I just think it's hard to address them all because so many are not defined in the rules, and so many people take certain ways as a given that they don't address it.

Now, that's not to say that will always be an issue. Just that it's work the DM or group will have to do what the books could have.

 

[Lanefan]

I don't buy it. You could say the same stuff about Runequest, or any number of games. That doesn't mean that RQ2, RQG and Mythras are all the same game.

I also find these conversations frustrating. I'm trying to say 'please actually read the rules for these games, and you will see they are not the same thing',

Obviously they're not exactly the same, but are they close enough for rock 'n' roll?

If a 1e player could sit down at a 5e table - or vice-versa - and pretty quickly figure it out based on the similarities, that's close enough; and I think "close enough" includes an axis running something like 0e-1e-2e-3e-PF1-5e along with some smaller games e.g. Hackmaster or DCCRPG. 4e's a bit of an odd duck - I don't want to say it's not D&D because it clearly is, and yet it's different enough to not really fit on that axis.

and I get responses that make it sound like I'm trying to be the Chief of D&D Club Membership. I ask people to explain what they think D&D actually is, in a positive sense, and no-one can explain, except to say that it's unique and ineffable and I will never find a satisfying answer. I'm not asking about the nature of the Trinity, for goodness' sake.

This is why I think your description, 'product within a culture', is probably the closest we'll get. D&D isn't a game, it's an idea. Which is fine, until you want to talk about the specifics of a game, and they get confused with the idea.

There's variances in the rules - some of them quite significant - between peewee hockey, college hockey, international hockey, and the NHL - but they're still all playing what is fairly obviously hockey.

 

[hawkeyefan]

You'\re assuming I even know who the players will be when designing the setting - hint, I don't! I started design work on my current setting about a year before presenting it to any prospective players (though I did run a quick one-off during that time with a couple of keeners to field-test some rule changes).

I've no idea who if anyone will be playing in the setting...and even less idea who if anyone will be playing in it ten years later. And I'm not going to sign up players and then keep them waiting for a year while I bang out the setting. (it's easier now with tech, but time was I'd spend weeks working on a single map)

Yeah, I'm saying that's not necessary! It's fine that you choose to do so, but it impacts play when you do. Obviously, the impact may be positive or negative, depending on preference.

The adventures are the main focus of play, I'm not even trying to dispute that. But they're not the only focus.

Right, this is typically how my D&D games work, though there's a bit of a spectrum.

Let me ask you, though... do you think that this is a choice you make? Do you think it's a product of the way D&D itself plays? A combo of both? Something else?

I think the bolded great player-side advice but awful GM-side advice.

I'm sure you do. But I think it's far better for new GMs to start small and to set achievable goals. To do what is actually needed for play, and not design an entire world before play even begins.

If they're the kind of person who likes to do that, and who has the time to spend on it, and has players that want that... then they'll go ahead and do it.

Wouldn't it be light-years better to give them pointers, guidelines, and shortcuts on how to do that worldbuilding than to tell them not to bother? (though I suppose if WotC want to sell more canned settings, then telling them not to bother would be a good step to take)

I never said not to bother. I said to focus on what's needed. I don't need to know all the far off lands in the world and the major exports of all countries and all that crap to start play. I need some characters and some situations, and a few locations.

I've had campaigns set across galaxies that felt far less detailed than campaigns I've played that took place in like three neighborhoods of a city.

 

[hawkeyefan]

I don't buy it. You could say the same stuff about Runequest, or any number of games. That doesn't mean that RQ2, RQG and Mythras are all the same game.

I also find these conversations frustrating. I'm trying to say 'please actually read the rules for these games, and you will see they are not the same thing', and I get responses that make it sound like I'm trying to be the Chief of D&D Club Membership. I ask people to explain what they think D&D actually is, in a positive sense, and no-one can explain, except to say that it's unique and ineffable and I will never find a satisfying answer. I'm not asking about the nature of the Trinity, for goodness' sake.

This is why I think your description, 'product within a culture', is probably the closest we'll get. D&D isn't a game, it's an idea. Which is fine, until you want to talk about the specifics of a game, and they get confused with the idea.

I agree. I think it really depends on which edition you're playing. Some versions of D&D are far more focused than others. 5e is just incredibly amorphous. The idea that it's got a broad scope and other games have a narrow scope isn't really accurate, at least not objectively. It's more that it's got incomplete design which is then completed by groups who want a different experience than the general one of "heroic adventurers".

But most other games can also be changed to deliver a different experience. Look how many different GURPs supplements there are. Look at how many Savage Worlds settings there are. Free League's Year Zero engine is used for a variety of games. Powered by the Apocalypse has an absurd number of versions at this point. Forged in the Dark has been used for everything from Blades in the Dark to super heroes to "Dangerous Liaisons" to Star Wars.

The way that these games are made to provide a different experience is through rules that promote the themes and genre desired. For 5e, that's largely the role of the DM... hence why so many people seem to think the DM needs such strong control, despite the fact that it's clearly not necessary.

Why have rules to promote the desired outcome when the DM can just rule zero it?

 

[MichaelSomething]

I also find these conversations frustrating. I'm trying to say 'please actually read the rules for these games, and you will see they are not the same thing', and I get responses that make it sound like I'm trying to be the Chief of D&D Club Membership. I ask people to explain what they think D&D actually is, in a positive sense, and no-one can explain, except to say that it's unique and ineffable and I will never find a satisfying answer. I'm not asking about the nature of the Trinity, for goodness' sake.

D&D is about ignoring what's in the book and hacking it into the game you actually want to play. That's the way it it is ever since Dragon Lance. A 70's pulp flavored dungeon crawler? I can totally use it to run a character based fantasy epic!

 

[Imaro]

I agree. I think it really depends on which edition you're playing. Some versions of D&D are far more focused than others. 5e is just incredibly amorphous. The idea that it's got a broad scope and other games have a narrow scope isn't really accurate, at least not objectively. It's more that it's got incomplete design which is then completed by groups who want a different experience than the general one of "heroic adventurers".

But most other games can also be changed to deliver a different experience. Look how many different GURPs supplements there are. Look at how many Savage Worlds settings there are. Free League's Year Zero engine is used for a variety of games. Powered by the Apocalypse has an absurd number of versions at this point. Forged in the Dark has been used for everything from Blades in the Dark to super heroes to "Dangerous Liaisons" to Star Wars.

The way that these games are made to provide a different experience is through rules that promote the themes and genre desired. For 5e, that's largely the role of the DM... hence why so many people seem to think the DM needs such strong control, despite the fact that it's clearly not necessary.

Why have rules to promote the desired outcome when the DM can just rule zero it?

I'm confused... are you saying there are no rules in 5e...no rules as options in 5e or something entirely different. Because your last statement implies that everyone playing 5e is just making up rules on a whim and the books don't actually have rules in them and thats just not the case... in fact there are alot of rules, whats missing is defining how any particular DM has to use them.

 

[pemerton]

PC choices have consequences. Their actions, or inactions, have an effect on the ongoing fiction of the world. That lich that wants to be king? That was just one thread they decided to not pursue.

<snip>

I'm thinking of a narrative for the world.

The comparison Oofta and I were making was in response to a description of @hawkeyefan's 5e D&D game where his table is playing TToEE module. Hawkeyefan described the campaign as it being about the Temple and their characters were playing second fiddle so to speak.

<snip>

The character's goals and decisions override any adventure or module published or otherwise I'm running. If an undead king exists because of their decision to abandon a quest, it is only there because of internal consistency reasons. It would not be authentic to have the PCs tour the astral realm for 3-month period and have the lich waiting for them to return before making a move.
The unfolding fiction was not what was in question but rather the role and importance of the character.

For me, these two posts taken together are a bit hard to follow.

Just focusing on the ongoing or unfolding fiction, what that consists of and what is authentic to it seems to be something within the scope of the GM to decide. Eg the GM could decide that there is some reason the lich doesn't conquer the kingdom (for whatever reason), or the GM could even just leave the lich issue in the background (as happens quite often in serial fiction).

So the GM treating it as important to nevertheless follow through on this bit of fiction in this particular way seems like it the GM deciding to render something salient in play that is quite separate from the characters.

If they're off pursuing side quests because

The concept of a "side quest" seems to imply the idea of a "real" or "main" quest, which (i) is decided by the GM (? I can't see who else is doing that) and (ii) looks very similar to "the adventure" that @hawkeyefan referred to. This is why I'm not easily following what contrast is being drawn.

If the group moves on to other pastures, they may never even know that a lich wears a crown. I'll make note of it and it will become part of the ongoing history of the world which may have an impact on future campaigns. Or not.

This doesn't seem like part of play at all, and so I put it to one side.