D&D General How much control do DMs need?

[loverdrive]

Here's a passage from Dogs in the Vineyard (p 89):

Why almost every time I feel like I have an interesting thought, it turns out one of the Bakers already had it two decades ago? /j

 

[clearstream]

Idk if this was brought up before, but a thought just crossed my mind.

We talk about the distribution of authority as if it's a zero sum game, as if taking the power from someone automatically gives it to someone else. It doesn't.

Let's suppose there's a meta currency that the GM can use to mess with the players (I think 2d20 games have a such? Correct me if I'm wrong), and introduce a complication unpropmted (otherwise they must be clearly telegraphed). Yeah, the GM lost the ability to just paradrop tarrasques from a C-130. Did anybody else gain any more power?

I'm bringing that up, because, uhm, "unfair", unrestricted rules, on top of all other issues, create an additional responsibility of keeping the experience fun for the other side. And that responsibility can and does clash with others (namely, providing a challenge and controlling the opposition).

For a videogame example, again, there's this weapon in Team Fortress 2 called Short Circuit. It is arguably overpowered in specific situations (like when you stand near an ammo dispenser), which, in turn, adds a burden to anyone who chooses to use it: to use it with honour. For contrast, there's no dishonourable way to use a pistol (which occupies the same slot): you can just... Use it. You never have to worry about not using it while pushing cart, accidentally or otherwise.

As for a TTRPG example, let's return to a locked barn.

GM: There's a rusty old lock on a door, probably to keep out wild animals rather than provide any actual security.
Player: Cool, I'm going to pick it. Here it goes... 25!
GM: You pull out your tools and start working your magic... To your dismay, all this flimsy look is just a façade, the lock is actually a masterpiece of engineering, merely camouflaged to look cheap. (Offscreen: the lock also has a magical silent alarm system, and guards will arrive in five minutes)

This situation can make a narrative sense and show how ingenious and careful the opposition is, and GM here might be acting with honour, having planned this in advance and merely portaying the world with integrity rather than playing dirty and actively trying to screw over the players, but who gives a damn? From the player's perspective, they aren't bamboozled by the opposition, they are bamboozled by the GM. There's nothing the GM can possibly do to persuade the player otherwise, that no, she didn't mean to screw them over, it just so happened that the player's chosen approach didn't work.

The GM unquestionably has this authority, but precisely because she has this authority, she can't actually use it. She can't portray the world with integrity and control opposition to the fullest extent because it looks dishonourable -- higher order directive, Playing In A Way That Is Fun For Everyone, overrides both.

Now let's suppose GM has a Trouble Pool, transparent to the players.

GM: There's a rusty old lock on a door, probably to keep out wild animals rather than provide any actual security.
Player: Cool, I'm going to pick it. Here it goes... 25!
GM: (contemplates for a second, whether to give this position up or to defend it) You pull out your tools and start working your magic, but... (dramatically removes a token from the Trouble Pool) To your dismay, all this flimsy look is just a façade (and then GM will use another Trouble Point to pay for guards arriving)

Now, it's fair play. The GM had to sacrifice a resource, so the player wasn't bamboozled, merely outplayed. In giving up complete absolute power, the GM was actually enabled to exercise more power.

Nice post. It raised a couple of thoughts for me.

My first thought was whether motives for using written rules to delimit GM choices in game are the same as motives for using written rules to delimit player choices. Or might there be some differences?

My second thought was about the meaning of "power" in this scenario, and the word "outplayed". It seems like the two appearances of power in the last sentence might hold different meanings. Is that right?

 

[pemerton]

Why almost every time I feel like I have an interesting thought, it turns out one of the Bakers already had it two decades ago? /j

Have sympathy for those of us who only have interesting thoughts about RPG because we read Baker (or Luke Crane or Ron Edwards) some time in the past two decades!

 

[loverdrive]

My first thought was whether motives for using written rules to delimit GM choices in game are the same as motives for using written rules to delimit player choices. Or might there be some differences?

I'd say GM should be considered a player, just with an asymmetrical role, akin to the Thing in The Thing the boardgame or killer in Dead By Daylight. Their responsibility might be different, but their abilities should still be balanced. First and foremost, because it makes the process of GMing both easier and more thrilling -- if you can introduce as much dragons as you want

• A) You have to consider the "fun" amount of dragons, which is way too ephemeral
• B) Each dragon you field isn't really a stake. You can just pull out a new one, so the thrill of doing your best with what you have is gone

My second thought was about the meaning of "power" in this scenario, and the word "outplayed". It seems like the two appearances of power in the last sentence might hold different meanings. Is that right?

I don't think so, it wasn't really my intention. What different meanings did you read in it?

I'm struggling with coming up with a more clear way to convey what I'm trying to say.

 

[pemerton]

I don't think so, it wasn't really my intention. What different meanings did you read in it?

I'm struggling with coming up with a more clear way to convey what I'm trying to say.

I thought it was pretty clear, and didn't take you to be using "power" in two senses, but rather to be saying that by giving up what is in principle absolute power, the GM actually gets more power in practice, because they don't need to hold back for fear of dropping too many tarrasques into play.

 

[Clint_L]

As much as I am enjoying this discussion, I can see why it might be off-putting to many folks on this particular sub-forum. In thinking more about some of @Oofta's comments, I would like to pose a challenge, to myself and others: can you explain the persistent popularity of D&D in a way that is complimentary towards its fans? Ideally, in the context of this thread, taking into account DM control?

I pose this challenge on the premise that, while quality is ultimately subjective, popularity, particularly popularity over time, offers its own evidence of quality. I am appealing here to the consensus truth test, whereas much of the discussion to this point has been focused on coherence.

If we assume that most fans of D&D are rational people with good reasons for choosing to do what they do, perhaps it is the incompleteness itself which makes the game good. I am a rational person with good reasons for making the choices that I do, and I enjoy playing D&D. I typically am the DM, but I enjoy playing it, as well. I have to confess @loverdrive, that many of the aspects of the game that you point to as design flaws, I find to be features when it comes to my actual experience playing the game. In particular, the way the rules are ambiguous make running a game an art rather than science, as Gygax suggested more than 40 years ago, and I find in that ambiguity a scope for making the game my own.

D&D is very hackable, and as someone who generally likes to ask "what if I did this instead of that?" this offers a great starting place. It almost demands hacking. Is there a single table that does not have a plethora of house rules?

 

[pemerton]

can you explain the persistent popularity of D&D in a way that is complimentary towards its fans? Ideally, in the context of this thread, taking into account DM control?

I pose this challenge on the premise that, while quality is ultimately subjective, popularity, particularly popularity over time, offers its own evidence of quality.

I already did this, upthread:

I think the overwhelmingly popular way of playing D&D, at least since the mid-80s, is an approach in which the GM is almost all of the game: the setting, the situation, the framing, the consequences. Combat is something of an exception; some dungeon crawling sometimes is too. But I think most RPGers don't want the sort of game play in which the GM is not almost all of the game.

 

[pemerton]

the way the rules are ambiguous make running a game an art rather than science, as Gygax suggested more than 40 years ago

What RPG is this not true of?

D&D is very hackable

What RPGs is this not true of?

 

[niklinna]

D&D is very hackable, and as someone who generally likes to ask "what if I did this instead of that?" this offers a great starting place. It almost demands hacking. Is there a single table that does not have a plethora of house rules?

I might add that, being the first and dominant game, D&D has set up an expectation that a game demand hacking, which colors one's opinion of games that don't demand it. (All games are hackable, of course, although whether a given game works better or worse with particular kinds of hacks is quite variable.)

Edit: Fixed a typo.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

I know that some people are uncomfortable with the GM role only constrained by vaguely defined conventions, but don't think it is any sort of coincidence that overwhelming majority of RPGs being played rely on this "GM decides" principle. It simply produces the sort of experience most people prefer. It's not a bug, it is a feature.