D&D General How much control do DMs need?

[Enrahim2]

This is quite strange to me, because introducing a rule into a set of rules saying "you can change these" doesn't actually make the rules in question easier to change.

AW has a whole chapter talking in detail about how to add to or change various aspects of the game, and obviously is very successful in this respect given the number of PbtA games.

Ah, that is really triggering another insight. There are flexibilities on different timescales. My statement was with timescale of within a single session, while your argument is in the timescale from one game to the next.

PbtA games tend to be quite rigid with regard to how a spesific session look like, but it is easy to make large scale changes keeping the core concepts allowing for a very wide range of possibilities when changing around rules for a new game.

Rule 0 games (including D&D) tend to be very flexible in terms of the width of experiences that can be had within a single session. But I fully agree that D&D is very rigid in terms of making major changes to the existing game as such between campaigns.

I find this distinction fascinating, but I don't immediately see how malability of game rules from one game to the next tie into the main topic of this thread - DM control? For instance i am of the impression that gurps still is very malable (on the cross game scale) while granting the same controll to DMs as D&D (hence leading to similar in-session flexibility)

 

[Oofta]

Well, the poster I was replying to for a start.

Considering the source, I take it with a grain of salt. I have split parties now and then. It works fine.

 

[Oofta]

None of this addresses the actual issue, which is that GM is describing what is happening in several different locations at once, leading to a lot of real time waiting. Also, if like you say in the characters spend majority of time apart, it raises the question how this even is group activity, why not just run several solo campaigns and ease the scheduling issues? IMHO RPGs are best when the characters can react to situations together as group, and interact with each other. This doesn't mean that you can never split the party, but it is quite understandable why the common advice is to minimise it.

There's a difference between "Can't handle it" and "Is it fun for the group". In any group social activity, if only a subset of the group is doing something the others have to either be so engaged in what's happening to the other players that it's still a fun activity or the others have to have some other way of contributing such as (in D&D) running NPCs or monsters.

After a while it gets boring if Bob is stealing the spotlight and all the action for themselves. It doesn't matter if they've stolen the spotlight because the party is split or they're just completely dominating the game in other ways.

 

[Oofta]

I've been GMing games using my AD&D World of Greyhawk folio since about 1985.

I've used it to run AD&D games, Rolemaster, Burning Wheel and Torchbearer. I've played Burning Wheel in GH too.

I've never had issues with players introducing elements. When we started our Burning Wheel Torchbearer campaign, the players made up three new settlements: a Forgotten Temple Complex near the border of Tenh and the Theocracy of the Pale; a Wizard's Tower in the Bluff Hills, and a prosperous wayhouse called Fayan's Way in a location yet to be established, but presumably somewhere in the west of Tenh or east of the Bandit Kingdoms.

As a player, I introduced my PCs family, and family estate, and holy religious order. Again, this caused no issues.

I have people add things to the world on a regular basis. All I ask is that I have final editorial control to ensure that it fits the outline of the world that I've established. I have a big world and advance timelines between campaigns on a pretty regular basis, so there's plenty of room. But there's a limit.

For example Warforged don't exist in my world. I don't have an issue with the concept, but I've never introduced them and it would be odd to say the least if someone joined the campaign and decided that House Cannith had existed in the city the campaign starts and always has. Oh, and they've been making warforged for hundreds of years and their PC was part of a major war that never happened, etc..

That's vastly different from adding family estate, a religious order (as long as it relates to established mythology), adding relatives. It's a matter of scale and accepting the world's lore and history.

 

[soviet]

There's a difference between "Can't handle it" and "Is it fun for the group". In any group social activity, if only a subset of the group is doing something the others have to either be so engaged in what's happening to the other players that it's still a fun activity or the others have to have some other way of contributing such as (in D&D) running NPCs or monsters.

After a while it gets boring if Bob is stealing the spotlight and all the action for themselves. It doesn't matter if they've stolen the spotlight because the party is split or they're just completely dominating the game in other ways.

There's no spotlight stealing. Presumably each player would still get a comparable amount of spotlight time, just not all at the same time. Bob having a scene where his character investigates the haunted manor alone is likely balanced by you having a scene where you investigate the overgrown graveyard alone.

Surely if the game is fun then it's fun to watch sometimes too? Even in scenes featuring the whole party there will be portions of time where another character takes the spotlight, or has a long combat turn, right? It's not like you're talking in character and rolling dice every second of every session as it is.

 

[Oofta]

To add to the games already suggested, I’ve played or GMed the following games recently that all allowed for this: Blades in the Dark, Dogs in the Vineyard, Stonetop, and Spire.

The speed of resolution and the friendliness of spectatorship are big parts of the issue.



No one was talking about this being the GM’s job. We were talking about players caring about characters other than their own. If you don’t care about that as GM, that’s your choice, but if you don’t see why it would be beneficial, I don’t know what to tell you.

What the players care about is up to the players. There is no one true way.

A lot of is indeed etiquette and spotlight handling. But rules and the way the game works affects the flow. How easy it is to rotate the spotlight is impacted by the rules and processes of play.




The game handles it just fine or it may be an issue? Which is it?

The game handles split parties just fine. There will be an issue if one person or subgroup are playing a game while everyone else is just a passive observer. You can switch the spotlight between the groups which is what I do when the party splits but that has little or nothing to do with game rules. It's just generally easier to not have to switch back and forth for both the DM and group.

 

[Clint_L]

Fair enough, but in a somewhat technical or analytic discussion like this one it is probably more helpful to say that D&D is widely hacked rather than that D&D is distinctively hackable.

Another factor here is that, once a person becomes familiar with a few non-D&D RPGs, they probably stop hacking D&D and use other ones that work better. Eg I gave up all my efforts trying to make AD&D more "simulationist" (systematised spell lists, a proper skill/proficiency system, etc) once I discovered Rolemaster, which does all that work for me!

Oh, I totally disagree with your last point. I think there is a huge amount of inertia built into RPGs. Learning D&D well enough to run a campaign and then actually running a campaign is a massive investment. People stick with what they know, especially when it is working well enough.

The proof of the pudding is in the eating. All those “other ones that work better” sell a fraction of what D&D does. I agree that some players break off and find games that better suit what they are looking for, but they are not the norm. I think D&D is widely hacked because 1) it’s what people know, and it’s easiest to stick with what you know (and easiest to find other players) 2) it’s easy to hack and encourages hacking 3) it’s a fun game.

 

[Oofta]

There's no spotlight stealing. Presumably each player would still get a comparable amount of spotlight time, just not all at the same time. Bob having a scene where his character investigates the haunted manor alone is likely balanced by you having a scene where you investigate the overgrown graveyard alone.

Surely if the game is fun then it's fun to watch sometimes too? Even in scenes featuring the whole party there will be portions of time where another character takes the spotlight, or has a long combat turn, right? It's not like you're talking in character and rolling dice every second of every session as it is.

So Bob goes of to infiltrate the Acme warehouse. He's going on his own, he really wants those new Acme Rocket Powered Roller Skates. While we're resolving his infiltration, what is everyone else doing? Sometimes it's fun to watch others play through something, which is why I no longer send people off to play pool when we split the party. Other times? It just gets boring if it goes on for too long. Also depends on the group and what individuals enjoy. Some will enjoy the show, others won't. I have to balance based on what people actually care about, not what I think they should care about.

 

[pemerton]

Rule 0 games (including D&D) tend to be very flexible in terms of the width of experiences that can be had within a single session.

How so? What width of experience can D&D produce in a single session, that is different from (say) Prince Valiant? Or Classic Traveller? Or Torchbearer?

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

The point is: using Photoshop requires less effort than building an image editing software from the ground up.

Preparing a D&D campaign requires more effort than just... designing a game. The designers refuse to do their job and rule over the game with an iron fist, refuse to do all the thinking, and leave the most important work to the GM. You can't play D&D to explore the designers' vision and let someone else do all the thinking for you.

Only your own. At which point, isn't it just better to design your own system, that is grown in a lab to bring forth your vision? The amount of effort is, at worst, comparable. The results will be better. What's the point?

I love what you have to say. OTOH I do think you're, probably deliberately, expressing an extreme view. Unfortunately (or maybe not unfortunately depending on what your goals are) there's a lot of people here who simply take you literally. I do think it would be interesting to take your thoughts to the table and explore the limits of where you're going.