D&D General How much control do DMs need?

[EzekielRaiden]

But...How do you know if the players will or won't dwell on it/bring it up if it's never included because you don't think the players will dwell on it or bring it up. I've seen too many times, where my players latch on to something I thought was a minor npc, detail, place or monster and it becomes more because they decided it would. Why wouldn't I want to enable that?

Why do you need to prepare everything before your players will be allowed to ask about it? Can you not just...enable your players to ask about what they like?

(Edit: also, check the edit to my previous post.)

 

[niklinna]

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).

My view of this is that the GM is "just another player" in such games, except they're responsible for all the other characters and their role in play is to respond to the "players'" initiative rather than prodding them along. But since everything comes up in the moment, GM play gets to be just as dynamic and surprising as player play. It's all unfolding right now, not the revelation of some predetermined thing as the players uncover the flaps on the advent calendar (to make a very strained metaphor indeed).

 

[Swarmkeeper]

OK, soo... How would you condense a dangerous fight that isn't narratively important enough for full-blown initiative format?

I mean, I'm not @lmaro but when I'm DMing D&D 5e, I wouldn't ever condense a "dangerous fight". A dangerous fight is inherently uncertain and has meaningful consequences - the dice should be involved, IMO. And I would continue to use the combat rules as we've been using them so the players can continue to expect consistent rulings from me.

 

[Imaro]

OK, soo... How would you condense a dangerous fight that isn't narratively important enough for full-blown initiative format?

Can I throw this back at you first... why am I having a fight that isn't narratively important (but dangerous??) if only having narratively important fights is a concern of mine for my game (more importantly why am I expecting a game based off of combat attrition as opposed to narratively important combat) to do this job? D&D is a game of attrition, that's part of it's design... asking how do you do something that is antithetical to its design and default way of play seems odd... especially from someone as concerned about game design as you. It's akin to asking okay I know its natural way of movement is flight but how do I get this Eagle to crawl on all fours... and then declaring that a failure on the Eagle's part because it can't.

Now to answer your question... treat it as a hazard/trap since that is essentially what you want with no initiative allowed. Have them make a DC check to "spot" the hazard/impending combatants if there is a chance of surprise... (Those who fail take unavoidable damage based on severity). determine the hazard/combatants severity using traps by level and use the traps DC for each player to make an single check based on their overall actions in the fight in order to avoid taking damage. If they fail they take damage and either way combat ends once each player has made an ability check. This combat will literally be over in 5-7mins... and all I did was use the rules for traps/hazards.

But again...why did I want to run a combat in this manner using D&D?

(And, no, spells and supernatural abilities isn't attacking with words, it's attacking with magic. You are not hurting the other person emotionally or socially)

Vicious Mockery and Psychic damage would like to have a word with you.

 

[Imaro]

Why do you need to prepare everything before your players will be allowed to ask about it? Can you not just...enable your players to ask about what they like?

(Edit: also, check the edit to my previous post.)

I never said everything HAS to be pre-prepared...

How do your players know they will be interested in something that they may or may not have even conceived of. You're basically claiming all people have total knowledge of everything that would or could possibly interest them in a ttrpg and will also bring this knowledge unerringly to the forefront in a game... that seems...an odd expectation

 

[hawkeyefan]

I think what frustrates me about these conversations is that one form of making things up is offered as "more real" or "objectively real" and so on than another form of making things up. Which is just odd since in both cases, things are being made up.

GMs simply don't need to have the level of control over the world to the extent that is often suggested. What's happening is not the creation of an "objectively real" fictional world, but it is instead a fictional world that is more controlled by one person.

Typically, what most people are saying is that they want or need (or believe that they need) that amount of control to depict a consistent fictional world. It's their preference, which is fine. However, it's nothing more than a preference.

Folks should instead say "I can't depict a consistent fictional world unless I prepare much/most/all of it ahead of time".

I think this is the crux of it. D&D requires at least some level of preparation... some level of control by the DM. It will vary from person to person or group to group according to preference. But what amount do they "need"? Not nearly as much as many think.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

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!)!

Just as kind of a 4e aside: interestingly there's a gap in the 'rules regulate scene transitions'. That is the rules state there is exploration, free RP, and encounters (DMG2 adds vignettes). An SC is structured as an encounter but it can span scenes and overlap with other encounters, which can sometimes throw things more onto GM judgement as to how and when this happens. It's a particular 4e GM skill, though not too hard to do most of the time. SC during combat can be a bit tricky though.

 

[Imaro]

I think what frustrates me about these conversations is that one form of making things up is offered as "more real" or "objectively real" and so on than another form of making things up. Which is just odd since in both cases, things are being made up.

GMs simply don't need to have the level of control over the world to the extent that is often suggested. What's happening is not the creation of an "objectively real" fictional world, but it is instead a fictional world that is more controlled by one person.

Typically, what most people are saying is that they want or need (or believe that they need) that amount of control to depict a consistent fictional world. It's their preference, which is fine. However, it's nothing more than a preference.

Folks should instead say "I can't depict a consistent fictional world unless I prepare much/most/all of it ahead of time".

I think this is the crux of it. D&D requires at least some level of preparation... some level of control by the DM. It will vary from person to person or group to group according to preference. But what amount do they "need"? Not nearly as much as many think.

So a couple of things with this post...

1. To be fair I've seen most (maybe all) of those stating this saying the world feels more real (with an implied or explicitly stated) to them.

2. You're conflating consistency with pre-preparation... they aren't the same. there may be some saying they prefer pre-prep worlds... there may be some saying they prefer one DM/GM... then there are some who are saying they prefer pre-prep and a single DM/GM and finally there may be some who prefer collaborative pre-prep game.

3. I don't think D&D requires any level of prep beyond the same espoused for BitD or DW if the DM is familiar enough with the material and has the right tools. Honestly I think anyone could run a D&D 5 room dungeon with little to no pre-prep (especially utilizing D&D Beyond... the crux isn't game systems... it's styles of GM'ing /DM'ing. Sone are more comfortable improv'ing while some are not.
It's not necessarily a preference, in the same way not everyone can give a 10 min speech off the cuff, some people are not going to be good at DM'ing off the cuff... while others will be naturals. I think because D&D gives one the permission to pre-prep though it's going to attract a greater number of DM's/GM's who prefer that style along with players who prefer that style as well.

As for "need" it's a loaded term. If I have a table of players that don't want to collaborate then my need could be 100% on the flip side if i have a table of players who find that the most enjoyable part of a ttrpg then need will be 0%... along with the fact that it could very much fluctuate between the two spectrums based on time, interests, etc. However I wouldn't presume to tell any particular group what their actual need is or isn't.

 

[Snarf Zagyg]

Can I throw this back at you first... why am I having a fight that isn't narratively important (but dangerous??) if only having narratively important fights is a concern of mine for my game (more importantly why am I expecting a game based off of combat attrition as opposed to narratively important combat) to do this job? D&D is a game of attrition, that's part of it's design... asking how do you do something that is antithetical to its design and default way of play seems odd... especially from someone as concerned about game design as you. It's akin to asking okay I know its natural way of movement is flight but how do I get this Eagle to crawl on all fours... and then declaring that a failure on the Eagle's part because it can't.

3. I don't think D&D requires any level of prep beyond the same espoused for BitD or DW if the DM is familiar enough with the material and has the right tools. Honestly I think anyone could run a D&D 5 room dungeon with little to no pre-prep (especially utilizing D&D Beyond... the crux isn't game systems... it's styles of GM'ing /DM'ing. Sone are more comfortable improv'ing while some are not.
It's not necessarily a preference, in the same way not everyone can give a 10 min speech off the cuff, some people are not going to be good at DM'ing off the cuff... while others will be naturals. I think because DM gives one the permission to pre-prep though it's going to attract a greater number of DM's/GM's who prefer that style along with players who prefer that style as well.

Going to make two points on this-

I think that one issue that tends to get elided in these conversations is that classically, D&D doesn't determine narratively important fights a priori.

To put it in more concrete terms-

There is a possible combat. Maybe it's it's the "big bad" that has been taunting the PCs. Maybe it's a kobold hanging out in an empty 30'x30' room. Maybe it's a wandering monster. Maybe it's an NPC that could give information, but the PCs are in a fightin' mood.

Generally, the PCs make a choice- fight? Parlay? Run away? Do something else? Their choices, their decisions, make for the emergent story. That is what makes the combat "narratively" important- not the DM or someone else making that determination!

It's just a fundamental misunderstanding of roles to ask that the DM determine if combat is, or isn't, narratively important. If it is important to the players, they will engage. If it isn't important, they should seek to avoid it. The narrative importance of the event is best know after the event, which is how it should be given that this is an emergent story.

The DM presents the world. The players, as autonomous agents, determine what they feel is important and act on it.

Which leads to the second point. There was, arguably, an early split in D&D philosophies between the more preparation-heavy Gygax and the much more improvisational Arneson. This is something that continues to this day, and, arguably, continues to be a schism in how different people approach the game (sometimes within the same session). As you correctly point out- you don't need prep at all. There are people that strip away almost all of the prep of D&D until you end up with something resembling an FKR game; just as I have mentioned that the reviewer of Everway could see how that game reflected the actuality of how he played AD&D, so too can people see that D&D can both have a strong prep component, or a no-prep component, depending on the table.


In the end, this very slipperiness is what drives some of this debate, because if you are someone used to a prescriptivist approach to games (sometimes referred to as "system matters") then the idea that the rules do not encode the game (instead encoding an approach, a history, and a shared sensibility) is often seen an anathema and abhorrent, as opposed to attractive.

Different strokes for different folks.

 

[Oofta]

I think what frustrates me about these conversations is that one form of making things up is offered as "more real" or "objectively real" and so on than another form of making things up. Which is just odd since in both cases, things are being made up.

By that logic a Bugs Bunny cartoon is just as real as the Yellowstone TV series my wife and I have been watching. Neither one may be realistic, but they are not the same just because they are both fictional.

GMs simply don't need to have the level of control over the world to the extent that is often suggested. What's happening is not the creation of an "objectively real" fictional world, but it is instead a fictional world that is more controlled by one person.

And? Your point? Because my point is that in the real world I can only affect the world around me by my actions, by what I do. I can't suddenly make a million dollars appear in my bank account because it would be better for my life story if it did. That perspective, what a PC can control and how they can change in the world is closer to reality.

Typically, what most people are saying is that they want or need (or believe that they need) that amount of control to depict a consistent fictional world. It's their preference, which is fine. However, it's nothing more than a preference.

As is the preference for more or less DM authority.

Folks should instead say "I can't depict a consistent fictional world unless I prepare much/most/all of it ahead of time".

Nope. I improv all the time. I know how my world works so what I invent on the fly will be consistent. But planned ahead of time? Nah. I plan general outlines for my games but most of my planning is figuring out NPCs, organizations, general location ideas. Even then a significant portion of NPCs are improved using a list of random names that I have handy.

I think this is the crux of it. D&D requires at least some level of preparation... some level of control by the DM. It will vary from person to person or group to group according to preference. But what amount do they "need"? Not nearly as much as many think.

Some level of prep? Well, sure. Much/most/all? Not even close. A lot of my best sessions have been almost completely made up as I go along.