D&D General How much control do DMs need?

[pemerton]

This is the process of play taken literally from the book Agon pg. 12

Game play begins when the heroes arrive at an island afflicted by strife. Each island provides an immediate contest upon arrival that establishes the situation and demands heroic action - like the opening teaser for a thrilling TV show.

After the initial conflict, the heroes explore the island, befriend allies, confront enemies, and attempt to overcome the trials that the strife has placed in their path.

Finally, the heroes face a battle to determine the ultimate destiny of the island - whether it is pulled out of despair or slips further into mystery.

The heroes explore the island is a description of some fiction, not of a process of play. The process of play is on p 68. Notice how it tells the strife player to reveal what the heroes suspect, and (p 69) to reveal the situation in motion. The players don't need to explore. They need to choose sides and weigh consequences.

 

[Imaro]

The heroes explore the island is a description of some fiction, not of a process of play. The process of play is on p 68. Notice how it tells the strife player to reveal what the heroes suspect, and (p 69) to reveal the situation in motion. The players don't need to explore. They need to choose sides and weigh consequences.

Ok so by explore you mean only discovering or learning things that are hidden? Because the GM is still revealing pre-prepped information to the PC's that they had no prior knowledge of as they interact with the fiction. (Not being difficult just want to make sure we are on the same page)

 

[Imaro]

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!

What exactly did you have to hack in AD&D 2e in order to play Dragonlance?

 

[AnotherGuy]

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.

Something is introduced into play, lets say rumours of there being giant attacks. Rumours become facts, and attacks seem to increase in frequency. There is a sharp inflation, perhaps a shortage of some material, trickle of refugees - all due to the actions of these off-screen giants. Characters can either get involved and investigate or carry on about their business or take on another quest.
Essentially, what has happened, the DM has introduced the beginnings of the Storm King's Thunder AP.

If the characters do not participate, I'm not suddenly going to hit pause on the background.
Or if the characters disappear for two years and come back and then ask hey what happened to those giant attacks. The DM isn't going to say, oh nothing because you weren't there. That would knock my players right out of storyline and I prefer to maintain some sense of immersion.

The difference with @hawkeyefan's game and mine would be that for his table they've drawn up characters specifically for that module and that is it. No downtime, no character development, no nothing is going to happen, because there is no opportunity. The game is strictly about the Temple and beating it. That quest cannot be abandoned or paused. The characters will be dropped after the module.

In my game, there is character development (cleric recently suffered a crisis of faith - the cleric has not been praying for his spells and put the party at some risk), character story arcs and goals will be explored (just closed off a character's backstory, goal was accomplished). There is downtime (artificer is researching information about advanced technology and its relation if any to magic, another made a pact with a devil and is either going to lean into that or start regretting it). Quests can be abandoned. There is a chasm of difference between the two campaigns.

 

[hawkeyefan]

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.

No, that’s not what I’m saying. The are lots of rules in 5e. There are also lots of vague references or unclear processes that lead to various ways to play “as written”.

I mean, all I’m really doing is pointing out the drawback of the same thing that many are citing as a feature, and what you say at the end of this post.

And also, other games don’t lack this flexibility. They just acknowledge that to get a different feel/theme/genre, you’ll have to change the rules.

 

[MichaelSomething]

I did't experience in either of those things so I don't know. I do hear it brought up as the first sign there was a split between dungeon crawling vs adventure pathing. My point still stands though? Or should I bring up more ways where players conflicted with the rules?

What exactly did you have to hack in AD&D 2e in order to play Dragonlance?

 

[hawkeyefan]

If the characters do not participate, I'm not suddenly going to hit pause on the background.
Or if the characters disappear for two years and come back and then ask hey what happened to those giant attacks. The DM isn't going to say, oh nothing because you weren't there. That would knock my players right out of storyline and I prefer to maintain some sense of immersion.

No, of course the DM isn’t going to say that. But there’s no reason to. The DM can instead say any number of things that could happen in the world to explain why the giant attacks have stopped or lessened. Maybe a coalition of nations banded together and fought them back. Maybe another band of mercenaries/adventurers came along and solved the problem, but have also kind of taken over, presenting a different kind of situation.

There are all kinds of things you can come up with.

The difference with @hawkeyefan's game and mine would be that for his table they've drawn up characters specifically for that module and that is it. No downtime, no character development, no nothing is going to happen, because there is no opportunity. The game is strictly about the Temple and beating it. That quest cannot be abandoned or paused. The characters will be dropped after the module.

Sure, that’s how that game is going. Our previous 5e campaign was more of a sandbox based around a home location. This was a game with rotating GMs where we all contributed to the setting. It was a different kind of game. Having multiple GMs was also eye-opening in exactly how open to interpretation a lot of the standard procedures of play are.

In my game, there is character development (cleric recently suffered a crisis of faith - the cleric has not been praying for his spells and put the party at some risk), character story arcs and goals will be explored (just closed off a character's backstory, goal was accomplished). There is downtime (character is researching information about technology, another made a pact with a devil and is either going to lean into that or start regretting it). Quests can be abandoned. There is a chasm of difference between the two campaigns.

I don’t know how big that chasm is. It honestly depends on many factors. It’s possible that it’s huge. Very often, I think folks overestimate this kind of thing.

The game I just described above was certainly different than our current one, but not drastically so. The characters were more central, for sure, their goals were left more up to the players than to the GM. It helped that no GM was constant.

But the character development was fairly limited. It was mostly about character portrayal or expression rather than development, though I’d say there was at least some development.

I’d still place this game closer to our Temple game than I would to some of the other games I’ve run/played.

 

[AnotherGuy]

No, of course the DM isn’t going to say that. But there’s no reason to. The DM can instead say any number of things that could happen in the world to explain why the giant attacks have stopped or lessened. Maybe a coalition of nations banded together and fought them back. Maybe another band of mercenaries/adventurers came along and solved the problem, but have also kind of taken over, presenting a different kind of situation.

There are all kinds of things you can come up with.

This is true and I have done this and am currently doing this now. Not with the SKT or RoT APs but with another 2 (OftA and WD: DH) that are in the background as colour, but also as opportunity, should the PCs so wish.
As DM I get to decide which unattended adventures modify the setting and which do not.

Sure, that’s how that game is going. Our previous 5e campaign was more of a sandbox based around a home location. This was a game with rotating GMs where we all contributed to the setting. It was a different kind of game. Having multiple GMs was also eye-opening in exactly how open to interpretation a lot of the standard procedures of play are.

I don’t know how big that chasm is. It honestly depends on many factors. It’s possible that it’s huge. Very often, I think folks overestimate this kind of thing.

The game I just described above was certainly different than our current one, but not drastically so. The characters were more central, for sure, their goals were left more up to the players than to the GM. It helped that no GM was constant.

But the character development was fairly limited. It was mostly about character portrayal or expression rather than development, though I’d say there was at least some development.

I’d still place this game closer to our Temple game than I would to some of the other games I’ve run/played.

To be clear, I'm not comparing my D&D game to any games whereby the players have shared control over new content such as your DW campaign.
I merely compared it to the 5e game you're participating in as described by yourself which sounds like your typical - Iets beat the module experience, which is not what I'm running at my table.

 

[Oofta]

But the way you would have a more collaborative campaign would be to place constraints on the GM...

Why? Why is that the only way? Why not just say "We're going to share control, let's talk about how we're going to do it."? Unless you say that anytime a DM doesn't design everything about the campaign world it's a "constraint".

I'm not claiming that they are universal models, just that they act as models for many people. You say as much in your second sentence here... a lot of DMs use them like that.

That they're not the only model or the only way to play doesn't make them not influential.

There are many ways to DM. The problem that I've seen is that some of the people who rely on modules don't know how to handle it when there aren't clear steps. Give them something like Dragon Heist which is more of a setting book with a side quest*. In order to make it work, you have to improvise a fair amount and be willing to build on the outline that your given. Some DMs can make that into a cool campaign, some have a hard time with it and would be better off running a module more on the rails.

In theory they're going to talk more about how to run a campaigns in the 2024 DMG. But for now anyway, for some people running modules that have clear plotlines is best option. For some people that will probably always be the best option.

* At least that's my take on it, I've never actually run it.

 

[Imaro]

I did't experience in either of those things so I don't know. I do hear it brought up as the first sign there was a split between dungeon crawling vs adventure pathing. My point still stands though? Or should I bring up more ways where players conflicted with the rules?

Nah, you're good I thought your statement was from first hand experience.