D&D General How much control do DMs need?

[Lanefan]

This is one reason I keep mentioning Ironsworn in these threads. It's easy to pick up and play, to experience exactly how exploring what oneself and other players have imagined can work. @Lanefan I would recommend it, if time permits. The pdf is free on RPGNow.

Thanks for the tip! I'll give it a look.

 

[Lanefan]

I've never played computer games.

Ah, that's telling.

Many of us cut our teeth on computer games before ever encountering TTRPGs. For me it was the Colossal Caves-Advent-Zork series, which I first encountered in 1979 a year or so before I even heard of D&D or any other TTRPG.

Even after I started playing TTRPGs I never gave up on Roguelikes, though most other computer games left me kinda cold.

 

[Imaro]

I personally don't mind if the bulk of creativity in a game is primarily the GM; I just want to know if that's the case so that I can align my expectations to the game. My preference overall is for their to be more player input, but that need not always be the case. I'm currently playing in a 5e campaign of Temple of Elemental Evil right now. The GM in that game is clearly the primary source of creativity. The players are responsible for choices in how to engage with the existing scenario, and by adding a bit of color in how we portray our characters.

So I don't think it's a case of considering someone else's imagination unenjoyable or anything like that. I think it's a matter of application.

I'm curious... if this is a pre-written module (and apologies if it's not)... how is the GM the primary source of creativity? Isn't it the module (or more specifically the writer of the module)? I just have a hard time seeing the GM as being the driver if it's an already written, stated out adventure.

To offer a bit of an example, I'm playing in the 5e Temple game mentioned above, and I'm playing in another game as well, which allows for a lot more player input, and is largely about the player characters rather than some predetermined plot. I absolutely love when the focus is on characters other than mine in that game because those moments tend to be exciting and tense... I want to find out how things are going to go for the character. There are stakes involved that make it interesting in the same way a book or movie might be. I want to know what happens.

In the Temple game, when the focus is on another character than mine, it's mostly just for them to make a decision. Once they've done that, we can move on. I don't mind people giving a bit of portrayal to their characters... some flavor that makes the Fighter seem unique in some way... I like that stuff. But it should be kept to a minimum. I think it easily goes into self-indulgence when it's nothing more than flavor. The game isn't about the characters... so spending a lot of time on character seems wasteful to me. It's not going to lead to much, so keep it short and focused.

This is interesting to me in that... in the first example you say you want to find out how things are going to go for the character. That there are stakes involved, and you want to know what happens... However don't those things arise as part of and the result of choices?

Can't a character through how they choose to deal with a choice in the Temple game also have stakes involved? Have interesting consequences and create a situation where it is uncertain (until the resolution or sometimes beyond) what happens? Or are these the type of adventures where your choices don't matter and don't really affect anything? I honestly find an adventure that is so rigid that choices don't even have different minor consequences hard to grasp. Is the game mainly about the plot, sure... but it can be about the characters as well... there's plenty of fiction that does this.

Now, with a GM, I think the concern is that the more control the GM has... the more of the world and the situation that the GM is deciding... the less say the players have. So in games where I'm expecting or hoping to have more input, if the GM (or rules) don't allow me that space, then I'm going to be disappointed. I'd much rather they be up front about it and then I can adjust my expectations.

I think most people are in agreement with this. I don't think anyone is advocating deceiving your players about these aspects. Being upfront, IMO, is almost always the best approach in gaming.

I think this is something that isn't always obvious to everyone here, especially when they almost always play on game and almost always are the GM and almost always play with the same people. When one's always the GM and it's for the same group of friends always playing the same game, you all kind of know what to expect, and so that default setting can become something that one assumes is true for the hobby in general. I know that I did this... I was almost always the GM for the same group of friends and we almost always played D&D... I didn't think that me or my group as exceptional in any way, so I figured most folks who played RPGs had a similar experience.

No we talk through it in a session zero... I've been playing with some of my group for years and we still talk through the campaign and expectations in a session zero. Session zero has become pretty prominent, especially amongst content creators, as something D&D groups should do. Does everyone do it, probably not but it's not this thing that's unheard of amongst D&D players. I'd argue alot of the techniques and mechanics from indie games aren't unknown to D&D players (and many are, in some form or another, actually in the DMG)... including sharing some degree of narrative control, degrees of success, skill challenges, clocks, failing forward, and so on... I think where the difference lies in us D&D players who have adopted some of these techniques and mechanics is... we don't feel like it has to or needs to be as regimented and regulated as a lot of indie games (and those who are proponents of them) seem to do. We want to take what we like add it in and stir to taste... not have a game that must be played THIS way or you're doing it wrong.

 

[Snarf Zagyg]

So...I'm just realizing that I have been using @ wrong - I've been more thinking of it as a citation, a way to acknowledge that I am building on someone else's idea. When apparently I have actually been poking people, like a horrible nag. I sincerely apologize to you and everyone else. I will stop using it wrong!

The rest of your post is excellent, and I will probably reply to it in a bit.

No worries! I have mixed emotions on the "at" - if I'm going in depth on something someone else said, or otherwise talking about another forum poster, I will "at" them just because I feel weird talking about people without their knowledge.

OTOH, if I'm just giving a quick bit of credit, I'll sometimes just give a h/t (hat tip).

I don't think that there's a wrong way to do it, but like Beetlejuice, when you "at" me three times, I am prone to appear.

 

[hawkeyefan]

There's a rather large difference between exploring and inventing.

Exploring implies there's something already there to explore. Inventing implies there was nothing there and that it's being created - a.k.a. invented - at the same time it's discovered.

It depends on how you look at it. Exploration, to me, implies the unknown. I have limited knowledge of something until I experience it in some way. Experiencing it for the first time is the key.

Also, whatever is there to explore when we're talking about RPGs is invented. So they're not opposites. I can invent something for you to explore.

Your focus seems to be about when I choose to invent it, but I don't think that contradicts invention or exploration as you're stating.

Sounds fine in principle; in practice I could see it running aground very quickly when two or more people at the table have conflicting visions for how the world should work, keeping in mind that what each player invents becomes global for that world (unless you want to spend all your time trying to explain why things work this way here and that way somewhere else). So, if for example I put a nation over here who is really big on trading, suddenly everyone else has to account for my traders and make them fit in whether they want to or not...or else there's an argument.

But everyone who's talked to you about this over many posts has always said this is never really an issue.

When players are allowed to offer lore in some way, it's never done in a way that contradicts what's been established, nor is it in a way that creates a solution to all their problems! These are the typical counter arguments offered and there's just not really any truth to them.

Never mind that some players just aren't interested in world design, or even in downtime activities where we interact with the setting in ways other than adventuring.

This is valid. Although I'll add, as I expect is the case with you based on past conversations, your take on what a GM needs to create before play may give the impression of great effort, and so that may reduce the chances players want to contribute.

But if instead, this was incorporated into play in some way, it would probably appear far less onerous to some folks.

 

[hawkeyefan]

I'm curious... if this is a pre-written module (and apologies if it's not)... how is the GM the primary source of creativity? Isn't it the module (or more specifically the writer of the module)? I just have a hard time seeing the GM as being the driver if it's an already written, stated out adventure.

Temple of Elemental Evil is a pre-written adventure. It's an AD&D module but the one we're playing is the 5e version put out by Goodman Games.

I say that the GM is the primary source because that's how I see it. Yes, he's starting with prepared material, but I imagine he has tweaked it here and there, and the way in which he conveys the material to us and how things are described, are probably the biggest creative elements of the game.

This is interesting to me in that... in the first example you say you want to find out how things are going to go for the character. That there are stakes involved, and you want to know what happens... However don't those things arise as part of and the result of choices?

Yeah, absolutely. I'd say the biggest factors here is who decides the characters' goals, how specific the goals are, and how unique they may be to the characters.

Can't a character through how they choose to deal with a choice in the Temple game also have stakes involved? Have interesting consequences and create a situation where it is uncertain (until the resolution or sometimes beyond) what happens? Or are these the type of adventures where your choices don't matter and don't really affect anything? I honestly find an adventure that is so rigid that choices don't even have different minor consequences hard to grasp. Is the game mainly about the plot, sure... but it can be about the characters as well... there's plenty of fiction that does this.

Could there be? I suppose. But the game is about the Temple. That's the point of the whole scenario. If I'm a player and I don't accept that going in, then there will be a high chance that I'm gonna struggle with it. If there is anything about my character going on in the game, it's because we took the existing scenario and found a way to connect my character to it. We did that, but it's minimal. The play is not about my character.

The other game I'm talking about also has a goal that is predetermined prior to play beginning, but it's far more broad than "end the threat of the Temple of Elemental Evil". And the play is very much about the characters. My character in that game is a man of faith, and it has greatly helped his companions and their people. But it may also be a bad thing... is he a fanatic? Will his faith and pride ultimately prove to be destructive? I don't know the answer to that. We have to play for me to find out.

It's a different experience. Neither is better than the other, except as they relate to my personal preference, or those of others.

I think most people are in agreement with this. I don't think anyone is advocating deceiving your players about these aspects. Being upfront, IMO, is almost always the best approach in gaming.

I'm not talking about deception so much as assumption. Every game is going to have some variances in how it's played from one table to the next. But I think with many games, those variances tend to be pretty minor... or if they are major, then they're significantly altering the play experience.

With 5e D&D there's so much room for significant variance that people play it how they choose to do... filling in gaps with knowledge from previous editions or just with their preference... and then the end result is considered "official". But there is no official... there are basically hundreds of ways to play 5e D&D that don't contradict what's written. So basically everyone is playing as written, and yet still somehow playing in potentially significantly different ways.

And that extends to discussion. D&D and how it does things is almost always the default starting point for discussion. Which at times is fine, and other times is not. But with 5e in particular, even when it makes sense as a starting point, it's still not really sufficient because even something as fundamental as how to disclose DCs to the players is not stated openly and clearly by the rules.

No we talk through it in a session zero... I've been playing with some of my group for years and we still talk through the campaign and expectations in a session zero. Session zero has become pretty prominent, especially amongst content creators, as something D&D groups should do. Does everyone do it, probably not but it's not this thing that's unheard of amongst D&D players. I'd argue alot of the techniques and mechanics from indie games aren't unknown to D&D players (and many are, in some form or another, actually in the DMG)... including sharing some degree of narrative control, degrees of success, skill challenges, clocks, failing forward, and so on... I think where the difference lies in us D&D players who have adopted some of these techniques and mechanics is... we don't feel like it has to or needs to be as regimented and regulated as a lot of indie games (and those who are proponents of them) seem to do. We want to take what we like add it in and stir to taste... not have a game that must be played THIS way or you're doing it wrong.

See my bit above about 5e, I think that addresses most of it.

I think a session zero is always good. I think D&D would be smart to formalize it. And I think they'd also be smart to tell both players and GMs not to commit too strongly to anything before session zero.

 

[Enrahim2]

Another insight I got while reading trough this thread:

I think a central concept here actually is delegation of control. For any game the primary source of control is the game rules made by the designer, as that outlines the written socially accepted basis for the activity you have agreed to participate in. For most board games these rules take extreme control over the activity, limiting player input to a discrete number of options.

Traditional roleplaying games with their rule 0 however do something quite drastic: It delegates a lot of the control game rules normally can exert to a single player instead. That means one player essentially can make statements that has the same binding effect as if it had been in a traditional rulebook.

RPGs that do not hand this kind of control to the DM generally claim that this is in order to empower the players, but indeed they rarely give any authority to anyone to "change the rules". In other words, when it come to the "game rule" level of privileges, the game designer retains all control.

I think this distinction might be quite important with regard to what kind of experiences might be possible with the two kinds of games. By being delegated rules levels of control in a traditional rpg, a GM can do certain things that is really hard to acheive with a written ruleset. Maybe most importantly might be dynamic delegation of power according to the state of the game.

‐--------------------------

Let me give an example from a D&D campaign:

The first session I ran a quite simple railroad, mainly to get the players to get a bit used to each other and their characters. I retained full control over narrative, while they filled in flavor.

Second session when it had become clear they had gotten a bit into the setting, and had given clear indication that they were more interested in following other aspects of the setting than I had originally envisioned I started the session by asking them to each describe one thing they wanted to happen in the session. My challenge as a GM was to see if I could manage to get all events in sensibly (I think I managed ). This way I delegated a lot of control over the session to the players in a structured way, allong with effectively creating a "minigame" for myself.

Soon after we had a session I allowed the player that had lost the previous session to narrate quite freely what he had been up to. This set the stage and theme for the rest of the session (and indeed much of the remaining campaign). Again delegating a lot of controll over the narative to that player.

Soon after one of the group got captured and interrogated, and I delegated full control over the interrogators to the other players. That is possibly the most memorable roleplaying moment I have ever experienced.

After quite a few sessions they had started to get a bit tired of all the chaos they were causing, and escaped it without any clear direction for what to do next. At that point I ran a pre made adventure, effectively delegating most of the narrative control to the adventure author.

------------------------

This was all with the same characters. Noone needed to learn new rules. Still the feel, style and power dynamics changed from session to session giving unique experiences. This is the kind of things I really struggle to see how to manage with non-traditional rpgs.

In particular I can easily see how I as a DM can encourage and create mini sub system that effectively delegates power to players and restrict myself in similar ways as in a non-traditional RPG, as I have rule-level powers. However I have struggled to see how I could use any of the non-traditional rpgs I know to run a premade adventure if I so would like. The problem is that those rules do not delegate the power to me that is needed to further delegate the required control to the adventure author.

So in conclusion: The main reason I can see for "needing" the level of control D&D grant to DMs are to be able to further delegate that control.

 

[Lanefan]

But everyone who's talked to you about this over many posts has always said this is never really an issue.

When players are allowed to offer lore in some way, it's never done in a way that contradicts what's been established, nor is it in a way that creates a solution to all their problems! These are the typical counter arguments offered and there's just not really any truth to them.

I'm not talking about the type of thing that would give players solution to all their problems. I'm talking about the sort of large-scale worldbuilding (someone upthread suggested each player get 10-15% of it and the GM get the remainder) that occurs before play even begins; assuming a homebrew setting as with a canned setting e.g. FR or Greyhawk there's not much worldbuilding left to do - it's all been done for you.

So, when I-as-player am building my bit of the world and Joe-as-player is building his - and probably doing so at different real-world times and places - the odds of conflicts arising when we and the GM try to combine what we've created are pretty high.

And if we do this building process together then there's not much left to explore in play, because we've already seen it all before play began. (same reason I don't much like playing in canned settings e.g. FR or Greyhawk etc.: I-as-player have already seen or heard of the major elements, thus it's not new to me even though it might be to my character)

This is valid. Although I'll add, as I expect is the case with you based on past conversations, your take on what a GM needs to create before play may give the impression of great effort, and so that may reduce the chances players want to contribute.

But if instead, this was incorporated into play in some way, it would probably appear far less onerous to some folks.

It's not a matter of the effort involved, it's a matter of interest. Some players just aren't interested in any aspects of the game other than actual adventuring. Others, and I'm certainly in this number, want to take the DM's setting and interact with it in all sorts of non-adventuring ways that among other things could include:

--- setting up a home base or stronghold, be it for myself or as part of a party-wide initiative
--- setting up a decent home for my character's family, and helping other characters do likewise if asked
--- researching or inventing new spells and-or magic items (if I'm a caster)
--- digging into the history or significance of items found while adventuring e.g. we found a crown, so whose was it and why was it where we found it
--- non-adventure-related exploration e.g. let's fill in that gap on the map even if there's nothing there
--- getting involved in secular politics and-or governance at a local-regional-national level
--- helping with a war, if needed, by spending a few weeks or months on the front lines fighting or working for the side I support
--- bringing food or supplies to a village in need

But note: all of those are alterations to or interactions with the setting as it already exists. None of them involve me creating anything new of significance for the setting, and IMO nor should it. If for example I/we were to explore where the map is blank and the DM said "OK, you fill in what's there" my reply would probably include "That's your job - why are we doing it?"

 

[Lanefan]

Temple of Elemental Evil is a pre-written adventure. It's an AD&D module but the one we're playing is the 5e version put out by Goodman Games.

...

Could there be? I suppose. But the game is about the Temple. That's the point of the whole scenario. If I'm a player and I don't accept that going in, then there will be a high chance that I'm gonna struggle with it. If there is anything about my character going on in the game, it's because we took the existing scenario and found a way to connect my character to it. We did that, but it's minimal. The play is not about my character.

Correct, at that point it isn't. It's about the adventure itself, and guiding your character through it while succeeding at whatever goal pulled your party there. After you're done, your character will be (one hopes!) both a) much richer and b) more capable at what it does, and can then use those to further its own ends if desired.

The individual-to-character stuff IME mostly comes during downtime, when the party might split up while people do their own thing for a while before reconvening and heading back out into the field.

This is IMO where full-campaign APs and massive dungeons like ToEE really drop the ball: they tend to either strongly discourage or not at all allow for downtime, character interactions with setting, and non-adventuring character development.

I think a session zero is always good. I think D&D would be smart to formalize it. And I think they'd also be smart to tell both players and GMs not to commit too strongly to anything before session zero.

That depends on one's approach.

For me, I come up with the setting first; and don't even start talking to prospective players until that setting is complete enough* that I can run something bigger than a few disparate adventures in it. Then, I think to myself who might be interested, and on a one-by-one basis get together with them, lay out the basics of what I have in mind along with system and houserules (or major changes, if they've played with me before), and invite them in. Once enough have accepted, we then all get together (for the first time) for roll-up night, which if things go smoothly rolls nonstop into Session 1.

So with me there isn't really a Session 0. Instead there's a series of what might count as individual Session -1s, followed by roll-up night and Session 1.

 

[AnotherGuy]

I really liked your post, in particular the below two paragraphs.

Could there be? I suppose. But the game is about the Temple. That's the point of the whole scenario. If I'm a player and I don't accept that going in, then there will be a high chance that I'm gonna struggle with it. If there is anything about my character going on in the game, it's because we took the existing scenario and found a way to connect my character to it. We did that, but it's minimal. The play is not about my character.

You are not incorrect, probably for the vast majority of D&D players, but I'm suspecting for many of us life-time DMs with long campaigns, the characters are not a minimal segment of the campaign. And this heads towards your second paragraph...

With 5e D&D there's so much room for significant variance that people play it how they choose to do... filling in gaps with knowledge from previous editions or just with their preference... and then the end result is considered "official". But there is no official... there are basically hundreds of ways to play 5e D&D that don't contradict what's written. So basically everyone is playing as written, and yet still somehow playing in potentially significantly different ways.

This is quite insightful. It is why we have these endless discussions, because of this variance of play that exists within D&D

I have to echo @Enrahim2's position in that D&D affords me as DM the opportunity to change the style of play from one session to the next and even from one scene to the next should I so wish. That ability to surprise my players - either through the storyline or by giving them more narrative control in situations or through the introduction of a mechanic from another game appeals to me creatively.

And I agree with your sentiment that neither (system) is better than the other, except as they relate to our personal preferences, or those of others.