D&D General How much control do DMs need?

[loverdrive]

I feel like this is going a bit off topic, but I feel like I should point out that the D&D toolbox actually provide a huge number of components for this "simple" solution that enables the suggested way to resolve it both highly effective to communicate, and much richer in gameplay opportunities than what might be immediately related. I think this might still be relevant for the topic, as it demonstrates how D&D not only give their DMs a lot of powers, but actually empowers them to create a cool experience a lot more easily than if you had just had a rulebook stating "Chose a guy. Do what that guy tells you to do". This is further of importance when seeing how this empowerment is hard to retain if you try to distribute some of that power away (as I believe was supposed to be the core discussion of this thread)

(1) D&D specify that the DM has the authority to make such a ruling. Social bickering and rules lawyering can be effectively shut down, allowing the play to continue.
(2) D&D clearly defines "check" in such a way that the DM can simply state "Give me a dex check", and the players automatically know they should roll a d20 and do a particular kind of math, reading back the result. This process is likely much more effective, and allow play to progress more smoothly, than if the DM had to describe some new dice schemes.
(3) A stat check are having important related concept to it - in partucular advantage and disadvantage. Calling for a check is a prompt that can be responded by the players in any number of ways to frame or modify the situation in order to gain advantage on the roll - using inspiration being the most straight forward example. Hence by the simple action of invoking the request for check the DM has initiated an optional rich "mini game" enabled by D&D beyond the simple rolling of the dice.
(4) Calling for a check passes initiative to the players, as the DM has to wait with narration. D&D provides a ton of various character features the players might try to invoke in this situation - in some cases as part of trying to get advantage, but also in some cases also empowering them to effectively change the nature of the proposed resolution (like forcing the other side to make a saving throw first, or else automatically pass the check).

So in isolation asking for a dice roll to resolve a certain situation might seem bland, but D&D provides the tools for making even such a simple prompt and interesting or effective event depending on player choice. And all of 1, 3 and 4 relies specifically on there not being a strong external structure of play at work.

I can see value in everyone at the table understanding what "HP" means and their significance, but I fail to see how any of it is enhanced by lack of tools.

Like, in Fate everyone understands what Stress is or "defend with Will" means, and I can't see how it would be better if GM couldn't just pick an existing option from the toolbox instead of hacking together a bad ad-hoc solution on the spot.

 

[Enrahim2]

I can see value in everyone at the table understanding what "HP" means and their significance, but I fail to see how any of it is enhanced by lack of tools.

Like, in Fate everyone understands what Stress is or "defend with Will" means, and I can't see how it would be better if GM couldn't just pick an existing option from the toolbox instead of hacking together a bad ad-hoc solution on the spot.

But in this situation the GM did use a tool from the D&D toolbox? The ability check is that tool. And while it wasn't used in a context described in the book, that doesn't invalidate its use as a tool, any less than using hammers for anything else than putting nails trough tree mean you get no benefit from the hammer.

The argument has been that D&D is a big toolbox with no proper descriptions for how to actually use those tools. I am confused why you now bring in the no-tools scenario? That would be discussing freeform, which also is a valid, but almost universally accepted to be inferior way of running an RPG.

 

[Enrahim2]

The idea that (say) Vincent Baker or Luke Crane needs to design RPG systems to compensate for "GM weaknesses" is quite bizarre to me. It only makes sense if we already accept that the GM is almost the whole game is the default state for all RPGing.

I agree to this. I was sloppy with my thinking and hence expression. A more refined take expressing the point I try ro make is that the design idea of making it tight rather than loose are to compensate for GM weaknesses. (Like the weakness of not understanding the point of the design and hence running the game in a way that reaps none of the benefits from the other designs of the game ;p ). I have no problem imagining the core system of burning wheel being presented in a 5ed suggestion style rather than a rules style without it significantly altering the experience for most games of burning wheel.

I mean, nothing that you have posted here does anything to show that the rule that "swords do 1d8 damage" actually creates game play!

I think there might be too many paralel conversations in this thread. In this post I in no way tried to get into how the damage rule can create gameplay, so there is no surprise that my post is not showing anything in relation to that particular question It was directed at @loverdrive 's reepeted questions with regard to what the toolbox of D&D provided in the context of a way to handle combat in a different way than going into combat mode.

 

[Manbearcat]

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

Unfortunately, I don’t have time to read through the thread and figure out the context for your inquiry above. I quickly looked at your back-and-forth with @AbdulAlhazred and I’m just going to draw an inference and answer generically here.

1) Take a look at @darkbard ’s post above the first framed obstacle in the conflict you’re referring to. Through his character, he provides the impetus for the following scene in the way of his Minor Quest. In Story Now games, this is called “player protagonism” and is essential. The trajectory of play doesn’t orbit around my (the GM’s) conception of what’s important. The synthesis of overt player flags in PC build (premise/theme/xp triggers etc), direct input from players for conflict framing (answered questions or other game procedures like authored kickers/quests). and system premise/constraints “Hook and Reel the GM” (rather than the inverse).

Play (the accretion and evolution of character, setting, follow-on situation) is a continuous byproduct of this process. This is the “Play to Find Out” component. I don’t know this stuff going in or what I know is primordial, nascent and its given form through play.

2) Story Now games are diverse in their implementation but they all have a codified engine/structure to generate their particular brand of (1) above.

Some games are not closed scene-based (the AW family of games for example) while some games are (4e is among too many to mention).

If (1) is formulated to be scene-based, the engine will provide the essentials that answer the questions “how does the intrascene gamestate move” and “when does the scene end” and “how does the connective tissue of scenes (scene goals/complications to transition to new scene goals/complications) resolve?”

To hopefully illustrate a stark dichotomy, the answers to the above aren’t any/all of:

* the GM has unilateral discretion to answer these questions where answering them rests upon…

* their story curation prowess and personal priorities …

* their unique access to, and modeling of, dense setting /prepared metaplot…

* any input they afford players (which they can curate or veto)…

* and any input they afford system architecture (which they simultaneously have a huge adjudicative footprint in + a discretionary veto).

---

Hopefully that helps answer (stuff…unclear what this back-and-forth is about!)!

 

[loverdrive]

But in this situation the GM did use a tool from the D&D toolbox? The ability check is that tool. And while it wasn't used in a context described in the book, that doesn't invalidate its use as a tool, any less than using hammers for anything else than putting nails trough tree mean you get no benefit from the hammer.

As I said, I don't see "ask for a roll and then come up with arbitrary results" as a tool. Maybe it satisfies the most basic definition of one, but that's like saying a rock is a tool. For cavemen that didn't have factory-made hammers, yeah, I guess?

The argument was that D&D is a flexible toolbox and that is why it's successful, when... Well, no, it isn't flexible and it isn't a toolbox.

I can see how Fate provides tools: you take a look at the situation at hand, take a look at all the different options the system provides to deal with it, and choose the one that will handle it best, depending on both the fictional positioning and significance of the task. You can handle a fight with a dragon with the same speed as picking a lock; you can handle picking a lock with the same complexity as fighting a dragon.

I can't see how D&D provides tools: you take a look at the situation at hand, check the rules the system prescribes to handle it. That's it. Then you might decide that the rules provided suck ass and can't handle the situation in a way you see fit and disregard them, but like... That's not a strength of D&D. That's just a nature of a tabletop game.

 

[clearstream]

Traditionally, the Dungeon Master assumes god-like powers in a game of D&D. They are the omniscient narrator with power over everything but character choices. They build and tell the story, they populate worlds, they interpret rules. They even have the power to set aside rules and rolls, at their discretion (this is a whole other thread). But lately I've been questioning how necessary this power dynamic is.

I recently ran a session of my 5e campaign using modified Fiasco rules, meaning that the game took place as a series of scenes, and each player, including me, was a co-equal narrator - one person either started or finished a scene, taking turns, and the rest did the opposite. I had some control in that I set up the original scenario and put locations, objects and NPCs into play before the game started, but during play the plot was wide open - it was a mystery and I didn't know who did or why any better than the other players. We worked it out together through the course of the game. It was fun!

I also encourage players to improvise plot details that they want for their character, trusting that they too have the best interest of the game at heart. Lately, I have told them that they can add not just suggestions but major plot points, only requesting that they give me time to prepare if the plot point will involve having to create a dungeon or something (a lot of things we can improvise on the fly).

I'm finding that the more control I give up, the more fun I am having at my games. And it is making me suspect that centralizing power in the DM is not as necessary as the rules presuppose. Depending on the group.

Having followed the thread this far, I wondered what questions or problems have been identified in relation to this general enquiry? In relation to D&D (5e seems implied)

• Can authority over fiction be decentralised? For example decentralising narration in the sense defined in the basic pattern, or setting, situation, and NPCs.
• Can authority over mechanics be decentralised? For example decentralising calling for checks.

In the last few pages I've been reading arguments around DM-curation (some like it, some don't) and mechanical flexibility (some like to have mechanics that are particular, some like a mechanic that can in theory apply to anything.) Is it felt that decentralisation is only workable with the dissolution of DM-curation (with which it might appear on surface to conflict) and the adoption of one mechanic that can apply to anything (for reasons)?

 

[clearstream]

As I said, I don't see "ask for a roll and then come up with arbitrary results" as a tool. Maybe it satisfies the most basic definition of one, but that's like saying a rock is a tool. For cavemen that didn't have factory-made hammers, yeah, I guess?

The argument was that D&D is a flexible toolbox and that is why it's successful, when... Well, no, it isn't flexible and it isn't a toolbox.

I can see how Fate provides tools: you take a look at the situation at hand, take a look at all the different options the system provides to deal with it, and choose the one that will handle it best, depending on both the fictional positioning and significance of the task. You can handle a fight with a dragon with the same speed as picking a lock; you can handle picking a lock with the same complexity as fighting a dragon.

I can't see how D&D provides tools: you take a look at the situation at hand, check the rules the system prescribes to handle it. That's it. Then you might decide that the rules provided suck ass and can't handle the situation in a way you see fit and disregard them, but like... That's not a strength of D&D. That's just a nature of a tabletop game.

Setting aside the degree of success a given group might be having with D&D rules, it seems possible to discern two polar preferences (as I mention above)

• Some folk seem to like mechanics that are particular. They talk about the feel in play of the mechanic. I would say that necessarily, sets of particular mechanics will always be incomplete. Here and elsewhere I've read examples of exactly that. A case is given that the current set of particular mechanics does not cover (ignoring the specifics of the examples, I think anyone can agree with the possibility of such a case). I think it is exactly right to call a set of particular mechanics a toolbox.
• Some folk like mechanics that are general. They talk about being able to include anything in their play and the mechanic will manage it. A general mechanic isn't a toolbox, it's a swiss army knife... all tools in one tool.

It seems relatively straightforward to build arguments around these differences, but I do not see how those arguments answer the OP. Can you say anything about that?

 

[pemerton]

I would say it like this: You can handle the whole "how do we cross the Chasm" thing in detail in Dungeon World, you simply ZOOM IN.

Of course.

And as you say,

Technically if the players are having fun, they can focus all their energy for an entire session on that danged chasm and deal with move after move! Or if they go on with one throw of the dice, they will simply come to some other danger that challenges them.

In this sense DW can really vary its pacing and things quite a lot. This is a dimension of flexibility that is very hard to accomplish with a game like 5e D&D that focuses on specific rules constructs and situations.

This reiterates that what is relevant in Dungeon World is not the environment as described "objectively" by the GM ("You come to a 20' wide chasm"), but rather the narrative logic and trajectory of play, and the status of something as a threat, or an opportunity, and how that is established in relation to prior play and player priorities.

Play in Dungeon World can't be "objective". It's inherently normative - "thread", "opportunity", "useful", "having fun" - these are normative notions, and are at the core of DW play. (My actual model here is AW, but I think that DW follows it pretty closely.)

 

[pemerton]

DW doesn't have a formula for the distance you can jump, but it has STR and some special athletics moves for certain playbooks. So its quite possible the Barbarian can just leap across like a cat, and that the wizard will fall to his death on a 9 or less on 2d6! And the GM is perfectly free to frame it that way as "hey, STR 8 Wizard, you suck at jumping things, are you SURE you want to try to leap a wide and bottomless looking chasm?" My guess is the player will think twice!

As I posted upthread, DW has no problem handling these things.

 

[pemerton]

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.

Well that wouldn't make sense, would it. What's the actual advice you see all the time? "Ask your GM!"

So the GM will state what the rules are. What's the most common form of that, which multiple posters have stated here: "as GM I may call for a roll, or series of rolls, and will decide what happens next based on the outcome of those rolls."

If you think that they're misdescribing their own play, or mainstream play, take it up with them! As best I can tell, they're accurately describing both. That's why I have no disagreement with them vis-a-vis 5e D&D.