D&D General How much control do DMs need?

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?

In D&D the results as prescribed by the game are success or failure at the attempted task. If you use the optional rules from the DMG it can be...
Method 1. success, failure and success with a cost
Method 2. success, failure, lesser failure.
Method 2. success, failure, critical success & critical failure

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.

Could you expound on this... I find the game provides optional tools and processes that I have used in my various campaigns and they've allowed me flexibility in everything from mood to deadliness... but perhaps I'm not understanding what is meant by both flexibility... and tool box.

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.

Interesting... while I agree Fate has a universal system and is pretty fast when it comes to resolving something... the process you describe above about picking tools after looking at the situation at hand is the same as what DM's do in D&D. I'm failing to see the distinction being made here.


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.

Aren't the tools... the different ways to handle aspects of the game that are presented across the D&D books? If not what exactly are you looking for when it comes to tools? I think you're missing an important part in your description above, the part where you look at alternate systems presented to handle things and choose one of those if it is to your liking. Also I think you are conflating your personal like or dislike for whether things exsist. Just because you don't like a rule alternative or option doesn't mean the tool was never provided.
 

log in or register to remove this ad

...
Many of these could be singular checks or complex affairs, but importantly, with DW, the stakes are always clear and the difficulty is always set--by design. With D&D, that is far less true. The DM cannot so easily push the envelope in what and why and how, because the line between "great scene" and "damaging the game" can be perilously thin.

But is D&D having different levels of difficulty really an issue? After all, some tasks should be far more difficult than others. If I pick up my cat, it's not an issue (okay, one of my cats is quite chunky but that's a different issue). But if a large box shows up from Amazon that my wife ordered it could either be lighter than my cat or practically hernia inducing. I don't know until I make the attempt. I like that if I attempt something in D&D I don't always know the difficulty level or outcomes. It more closely emulates reality. Of course I should have a general idea of difficulty much of the time in both the real world and D&D. I'm assuming my wife isn't ordering a box of depleted uranium off the web. I'm assuming that unless there's a big reveal after the fact that the bartender is indeed just a bartender and not supernaturally capable of seeing through my deception check.

There is a certain level of trust between DMs and players. I think it's worth the tradeoff.
 



In D&D the results as prescribed by the game are success or failure at the attempted task. If you use the optional rules from the DMG it can be...
Method 1. success, failure and success with a cost
Method 2. success, failure, lesser failure.
Method 2. success, failure, critical success & critical failure
Those rules aren't optional, they're just not in the PHB.

There are rules expressly labelled "Optional" implying that those not labelled that way are no more optional than other rules. That said, the way the rules are worded makes them a tool to be availed of at DM's discretion. (I know that sounds like the same thing, but I make this point because there are other rules in the DMG that could turn out to be salient.)
 





1. Nothing, if there's nothing substantial to be accomplished. You just say what you want to say and the other character responds: saying "Hi" to a friend; contemplating about the nature of free will while gazing upon the false sun; etc

2. Auto Success if there's something to be accomplished, but it's not interesting enough to drag out:
Persuasion/Intimidation/Deception roll: if it's an obstacle to, well, overcome: persuading the bouncer to let you into the bar; getting your ma to let you sleep over at friend's house; etc
Insight roll: To uncover characteristics of the NPC in order to use them as an advantage in further conversation
Change attitude If the goal is to increase your standing/status in a positive way with the NPC
Aiding the check: Allowing other characters to contribute to a conversation in order to help an ally
Multiple checks: If a more prolonged or drawn out conversation is in order or if the PC's want to achieve multiple goals
Spells, supernatural abilities, : To attack or defend with words
Persuasion/Intimidation/Deception: To stop a confrontation

General ways to handle situations in D&D
1. Single Check
2. Group Check
3. Passive Check
4. Savings Throw
5. Working Together
6. Skills w/different attributes
7. Multiple Checks
8. Combat (easily adaptable to social combat)

And these are just off the top of my head...
 

My D&D character can take an average of fifteen unmodified swordblows with no ill effect. He can fall any distance with no chance of death or long term injury.
True, using the rules as written. However, people don't all use the rules as they're presented, and I'd argue, more often than not, homebrew or use hacks to get the experience that they want. In my game, you can't take fifteen sword blows with no ill effect, because HPs aren't as high. And I use higher damage rolls for falling. However, that can also devolve into "gamism" versus "realism". DnD allows you to houserule things as you see fit to get the type of game you want.

I have friends who play FATE. I don't because its not the type of game I enjoy, and I don't enjoy the mechanics (or at least, the mechanics as expressed and reinforced by the referee, or whatever they're called). They don't play DnD anymore because they don't like 5e, fair shakes (I dont' like it much either, and have moved to an earlier version).

DnD is what it is. DM control over most of the setting, action, and calls for resolution, with certain mechanics falling on the side of players, and the interaction of both is required to be done, hopefully, with cooperation toward building the experience that is fun for everyone at the table. And if you want that experience to be different (grim and gritty, spell points, alternate ability checks, etc.) you can hack it.

I gave up a long time ago trying to make 5e something it is not, so if I want to play detailed combat and economy, I'll use Harn or Runequest, if I want to play semi-fantast historical I'll play Wolves of God, if I want horror I'll play Cthulhu or Aliens. Picking the right tool for the job is the most important thing with RPGs, imo.
 

@Clint_L

I know you've at'd me a few times, but as a general rule that I have learned over time I have found that some discussions are just not fun or productive given the subject and participants.

That said, a year and half ago I did touch on the subject of player and DM authority in D&D (although my thoughts have advanced A LOT since then), and it's a subject I've returned to a few times in various ways since I think that the dividing line between authority/responsibility are one of the fundamental schisms that we see- and that while people often talk about shared control over the narrative (the game world) what is often left unremarked about in the negative space is that this distributive authority can also lead to a lack of personal control and autonomy over the character. Or put another way, people who truly prefer the "D&D-style" of play will often have strong opinions about whether or not other players or the DM can make choices or otherwise influence the control over their own characters actions. At one idealized spectrum, you have people collaborating to tell a story and play a game, and the frission and excitement comes from seeing what happens with your character- good and bad- in that shared fiction. At the other end, you have people making individual choices that matter, and the game and the story emerges from the choices that they make in relation to a fixed fiction as adjudicated by a single source (individual). Neither is good or bad, and most games fall between the two spectrums, but it is.

On a few other points from the thread-
I found your commend about DM authority in D&D interesting in terms of history and thinking about it from a historical perspective. That said, I would highly recommend reading some of the recent histories that have come out, especially The Elusive Shift and Game Wizards to get a good background about the history of D&D and roleplaying- you will learn a lot more from reading those two books than from any number of conversations you have here. Playing at the World is excellent, but a lot ... denser, and not as focused or readable (or new) as The Elusive Shift. It's an unfortunate feature of many conversations that people would rather spitball about topics than actually, you know, learn about them.

If you're looking at 5e, the DMG does have rules for shared narrative authority. In addition to all the rules about success at cost, automatic success, saying yes, etc., there are rules for plot points that allow, inter alia, players to add and dictate narrative (or complications) or even to "seize" the DM's role. Of course, the inability to acknowledge or discuss these options that exist within the core rules of 5e is why we see the refrain of "no one reads the DMG."

Next, if you're ever actually curious about FKR (Free Kriegsspeil Revolution/Roleplaying), I'd be happy to discuss it. It's something I've done some work with. I don't go into too many conversations about it here anymore because I had a flood of people with the whole, "I don't want to bother understanding it or playing it, but I feel it is necessary to forumsplain to you why it can't work because I once googled Kriegsspiel."

One more thing, since this came up and it tends to recur- those who think that D&D is popular for some reason (because people are rational actors) and are interested in discussing why that might be, and why that might be reflected in the design, will inevitably run into those who will argue that it's just a stupid accident of history and/or sheeple love brands (it's first and it's got a name). Given that those conversations usually involve preferences and or devolve into conversations about "objective quality and design," they are tend to be unproductive.

Finally, in terms of what I found interesting about your post about the historical origins of D&D authority. I think that there may be something to that in terms of psychology, and taking on a role that, as you say, we are trained to covet. It's an interesting idea to explore - in the same sense that I think it's a truism that D&D, as originally conceived, was simply a Western given the trappings of Fantasy. That said, the specific manifestation of the D&D referee (as the DM was originally was called) was very much a product of the historical origins from wargaming- even the repeated calls that you have a "neutral referee," for so-called Gygaxian Skilled Play traces its lineage to the referees in wargaming that original D&D players were familiar with. I'd be curious to see if you could develop this idea more, and perhaps bring in some of the ideas of how the more recent, internet-based collaborative fiction writing might be changing how we view authority in the TTRPG sphere given we have many people that are familiar with that as they come in- I know that when I was growing up, collaborative fiction writing was something that maybe happened as an exercise in a creative writing class, if at all.
 

I don't know if I'm that interested in 'collaborative fiction writing" as it might apply to RPG's. I find that I have to really work at being creative when I DM. I tend to overorganize, always look for that next cool thing, do too much research and grab too many resources, and then blank when it comes to what is interesting or might make for a fun game. So some might then say "See! A perfect opportunity to share the game world creation!" to which I would reply, yes, and I do do that. But then if the shared world thus created isn't interesting to me as a DM/Referee to run, then I'm less likely to be on my A game. Its a rough cycle.

However, I also find that many of the players in our group want to come to the table, hang out, and play in whatever game/campaign the GM/Referee has built. They don't want to DM, they don't want to add things to the world (even when asked or prompted), etc. And I'm going to guess that this varies widely from table to table. I think people can take as much control over the narrative as they want (at least in my games), but find it doesn't really work out that way. When I play, the campaigns are a journey, and if I'm adding in what I want into the journey, then its not something that is discovered, or potentially full of surprise, because I added it. Its also different strokes.

We tried a sort of sub-game called Microscope, where you collaboratively world build around the table, role play "scenes" of major historical plot points, and are allowed to add (or subtract), or redirect someone else's addition, all in a collaborative manner. It ended up building a world that I in particular didn't want to play in, even though I was interested in playing the game, so I opted out. That collaborative world was uninteresting to me as it developed. So again, it keeps coming back to both personal preference, and what the group you play with is interested in - in both a world building perspective (who does it, how much can it be altered by players), and DM/Referee control and authority (how much, how is it expressed, how does it allow or hinder player choice).
 

Remove ads

Top