D&D General How much control do DMs need?

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)
A few things.

1. Such difficulties, at least the way you've described them, simply don't happen in practice. If, as intended, a game of this kind starts out as "no myth," nothing is established unless it is discussed, openly, during Session Zero. Nothing, full stop--doesn't mean there isn't anything there at all, just means the group knows nothing about it. So if you never actually said that XYZ thing was part of the world...it's not (but potentially could be, if it makes sense.) And if you do say it, everyone can comment and discuss, so there's little to no issue. No one is sitting off in their own little corner tooling up everything totally in isolation.
2. Correct me if I'm wrong: it sounds like you read the previous stuff as "15% of everything that can ever be learned, ever." Not my intent. I meant more "15% of starting material," because you are not supposed to nail down the whole world in DW. E.g., a player (call her Alice) says her char came from Harlingast, bustling small city aspiring higher, partly due to the prestigious magic college, which the char (call 'em Perry Haughter) attends(/attended.) That by itself could be everything Alice contributes at Session Zero--I'd be quite happy. Thereafter, if Harlingast details are relevant, I have both informal ("ask questions and use the answers") and formal (the Spout Lore move) ways for player and/or GM to expand this in the open. I can also safely prep situations ("draw maps, leave blanks"--no plots, but events/conditions/etc.) that leverage Harlingast, knowing at least Perry will care about them, and the players get to explore.
3. If you don't have some kind of conversation like this--where the players discuss what they care about, what they wish to play, what values they have, what kinds of stories and/or story-beats they enjoy, what elements excite them--how do you as DM have any guess as to what they'll like? Obviously, if you've been playing with a group for a long time that's useful evidence. Thing is, that is (in effect) treating all your past history with them as an unofficial, implied Session Zero that they can't alter or comment on, thus leaving lots of potential land mines. Wouldn't it be better to sit down with them, and talk, at least at a high/abstract level, about the kinds of things they want and, perhaps, things required or implied? E.g., if one of your players wants to play a Wizard, stereotypically that means they had to get an education from somewhere--so where? Sure, you could write up the whole school all by yourself, but the player must have at least a few ideas about what that school must have been like to attend. Same goes for other characters: a Rogue likely had to practice their skills on the streets, so how did that happen, where, why, etc.? A Fighter had to learn the art of the sword, even if self-taught, so how did that happen, where, why, etc.? These things become seeds. Even if most of the backdrop of the world is ultimately written by the DM, the tendrils that grow from those seeds will spread and likely end up touching many parts of the game, almost always in ways no one (not even the players) expected initially--meaning even stuff you personally created can still lead to "discovery" and "exploration," not just flat, fiat declaration.

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.
Then Dungeon World probably isn't for them. In much the same way that bog-standard 5e isn't for someone who wants a cyberpunk game. If you hack the game enough, you can support it (that would be "Sixth World," in PbtA terms, the hack that implements Shadowrun in this system), but...to hack it enough to get to that point, you'd be inventing a new game, not playing the original one.

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
1, 3, 4, 5 (despite the statement of "non-adventure-related"), 7, and 8 are all adventure activities in Dungeon World terms. Going to somewhere that you have no idea what's there? That's (pretty clearly) Undertake a Perilous Journey--if the area is genuinely uncharted, that almost certainly means it's at least tough to reach or has something dangerous in it. That's an adventure, even if it's not of the stereotypical "delve into a murder-hole" type. Building a safe place is also totally an adventure. Baseline Dungeon World has rules for "Steadings," and another PbtA game called Stonetop is all about this sort of thing, so if the Steading rules are insufficient, you can probably burgle bits from Stonetop too.

I personally love few things more than "digging into the history or significance of items found while adventuring," so you 110% have my support on that front. One of my players is an anthropologist by training, so those sorts of questions are always up for discussion, and we have discovered a great many things along the way because of it.

The only two that might be not-exactly-adventuring are 2 and 6. 2 because "settle down and protect my family and nothing else" is...well, it's kind of a retirement condition for a D&D character. You don't go on adventures at all anymore, you're too busy being a spouse or parent, taking care of domestic issues, etc. Much like actually becoming properly the monarch of a realm or the like, where you have too many responsibilities to be delving into murder-holes.

6 is...more complicated. I enjoy these adventures, and have been including them in my game. However, the extant DW rules are a little thin for supporting this. I've done a handful of alterations (e.g., expanding what things qualify for the End of Session XP sources), and am continuing to look for ways to better support it. So, I certainly approve of this kind of adventuring, but I recognize that Dungeon World is not necessarily the best option for doing so.

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?"
You would never have a DW GM saying that. Like...absolutely not ever. Instead, you would have something like the following. (spoilered for length)

Perry: "Alright, that's all my shopping done. Darren, you finished with your meditations?"
Darren: "Yes. The Platinum Dragon flows."
Kara: "I'm...going to assume that's a go. Village mayor already paid us, so unless there's anything else people want to do...?"
Jaan: (shakes head) "Adventure calls!"
GM: "Indeed it does. You guys are packed up. The horses are fed, the pack mule is loaded, a village full of bittersweet goodbyes (and perhaps a couple admirers) is almost at your back. What do you do?"
Perry: "Well, I've been looking at maps the local priest had of the surrounding area. There's a spot north of here, toward the mountains, that nobody knew anything about--that's what we found out just before we wrapped things up there. Sounds mysterious!"
Jaan: "And mysteries are full of adventure!"
GM: "Well then. Kara, your people come from mountains, just not these ones. What does a dwarf do, when exploring new Stone?"
Kara: "We...do something we don't normally do, like, ever: We climb to the top of the tallest tree, and have a lookabout."
GM: "Have you done such a climb yourself?"
Kara: "No, but my father did, when he was young. He taught me the ways, after he knew he wouldn't be able to stop me from traveling. A dwarf is short and stout, you don't scramble up the tree like a kn--er, an elf." (winks at Jaan, who laughs) "You have to use superior leverage. Ropes. Counterweights."
GM: "Alright. You're able to find a mighty pine, not the tallest tree you've ever seen but certainly the tallest for miles around. Mark off your use of adventuring gear, then give me a Defy Danger with Strength--like you said, you've only been taught in theory."
Kara: (rolls: 9) "Alright. What's the damage?"
GM: "The tree is bigger than you thought--the rope you've got isn't enough to get you all the way up. This far off the ground, you feel a little dizzy--if you go the rest of the way with no rope, you'll definitely be feeling it for a few hours. Or you can try to survey what you can from where you're at, but you won't have the full picture."
Kara: "Damn. Alright, I go the whole way. Dad wouldn't approve of breaking tradition, but he'd approve even less of leaving a job half-done."
GM: "Alright. You're going to feel Sick, -1 CON, until you get a good night's sleep. From the treetops, you can see that there's more than meets the eye about this mountain, because...."

And from there, new things are learned. Most likely, the party will Undertake a Perilous Journey to get to whatever's on the mountain, which will introduce all sorts of new things, and then there will be adventure on the mountain. Notice, the player created multiple things here (dwarven history, climbing techniques, personal connections), and yet all of it was in service to discovery. Filling in that blank on the map--which the GM likely did not have anything prepared for, originally--is part of the process of play, driven forward by player actions, but not simply one player narrating the full information about it. That's how Dungeon World works, like any PbtA game.
 

log in or register to remove this ad

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...
I don't understand what you mean by "not a minimal segment of the campaign." I absolutely would NEVER describe Dungeon World as making the characters "minimal." Indeed, you are encouraged to do very much the reverse, characters are pretty core to the story.

I, personally, love grand epic quests, discoveries of ancient bloodlines and mysterious generational curses to be broken etc. So I have endeavored to give all of my players Cool Stuff their characters are connected to in one way or another. That's not at all going to be every person's cup of tea, but DW supports it extremely well, especially because creating new moves is an absolute breeze and tweaking ones you've made couldn't be easier. (I've only needed to tweak one move, and that one was simply me being a bit over-excited about a new player's stuff.)
 

I don't understand what you mean by "not a minimal segment of the campaign." I absolutely would NEVER describe Dungeon World as making the characters "minimal." Indeed, you are encouraged to do very much the reverse, characters are pretty core to the story.
Ah. In that paragraph I quoted @hawkeyefan who was referring the D&D campaign he is playing in (TToEE) and that the primary focus is the Temple not the character. I was just stating that for the particular DMs, with long campaigns, the characters do not necessarily play second fiddle. Their journey can be just as important.

We were not addressing DW or any of the other RPGs that place character first.
 

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

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...

I'm still not sure I buy that the vast majority of D&D players are running through pre-published adventure paths. I'd love to see some information that actually backs up this assumption as my experience outside of my own game just doesn't gel with this assumption (and admittedly I could be wrong) but the vast majority of DM's I've interacted with are doing homebrew world and homebrew adventures or published campaign setting and homebrew adventures... sometimes mixing in a published adventure here or there.
 

I don't understand what you mean by "not a minimal segment of the campaign." I absolutely would NEVER describe Dungeon World as making the characters "minimal." Indeed, you are encouraged to do very much the reverse, characters are pretty core to the story.

I, personally, love grand epic quests, discoveries of ancient bloodlines and mysterious generational curses to be broken etc. So I have endeavored to give all of my players Cool Stuff their characters are connected to in one way or another. That's not at all going to be every person's cup of tea, but DW supports it extremely well, especially because creating new moves is an absolute breeze and tweaking ones you've made couldn't be easier. (I've only needed to tweak one move, and that one was simply me being a bit over-excited about a new player's stuff.)

I could be wrong but I think he was speaking to D&D... not DW...

EDIT: Ninja'd... And that is why one should often read ahead to the end of the thread before posting.
 

I'm still not sure I buy that the vast majority of D&D players are running through pre-published adventure paths. I'd love to see some information that actually backs up this assumption as my experience outside of my own game just doesn't gel with this assumption (and admittedly I could be wrong) but the vast majority of DM's I've interacted with are doing homebrew world and homebrew adventures or published campaign setting and homebrew adventures... sometimes mixing in a published adventure here or there.
You're right. It would be interesting to see how many tables believe they prioritise character's needs over the adventure or at least place them on equal footing.
 

You would never have a DW GM saying that. Like...absolutely not ever. Instead, you would have something like the following. (spoilered for length)

Perry: "Alright, that's all my shopping done. Darren, you finished with your meditations?"
Darren: "Yes. The Platinum Dragon flows."
Kara: "I'm...going to assume that's a go. Village mayor already paid us, so unless there's anything else people want to do...?"
Jaan: (shakes head) "Adventure calls!"
GM: "Indeed it does. You guys are packed up. The horses are fed, the pack mule is loaded, a village full of bittersweet goodbyes (and perhaps a couple admirers) is almost at your back. What do you do?"
Perry: "Well, I've been looking at maps the local priest had of the surrounding area. There's a spot north of here, toward the mountains, that nobody knew anything about--that's what we found out just before we wrapped things up there. Sounds mysterious!"
Jaan: "And mysteries are full of adventure!"
GM: "Well then. Kara, your people come from mountains, just not these ones. What does a dwarf do, when exploring new Stone?"
Kara: "We...do something we don't normally do, like, ever: We climb to the top of the tallest tree, and have a lookabout."
GM: "Have you done such a climb yourself?"
Kara: "No, but my father did, when he was young. He taught me the ways, after he knew he wouldn't be able to stop me from traveling. A dwarf is short and stout, you don't scramble up the tree like a kn--er, an elf." (winks at Jaan, who laughs) "You have to use superior leverage. Ropes. Counterweights."
GM: "Alright. You're able to find a mighty pine, not the tallest tree you've ever seen but certainly the tallest for miles around. Mark off your use of adventuring gear, then give me a Defy Danger with Strength--like you said, you've only been taught in theory."
Kara: (rolls: 9) "Alright. What's the damage?"
GM: "The tree is bigger than you thought--the rope you've got isn't enough to get you all the way up. This far off the ground, you feel a little dizzy--if you go the rest of the way with no rope, you'll definitely be feeling it for a few hours. Or you can try to survey what you can from where you're at, but you won't have the full picture."
Kara: "Damn. Alright, I go the whole way. Dad wouldn't approve of breaking tradition, but he'd approve even less of leaving a job half-done."
GM: "Alright. You're going to feel Sick, -1 CON, until you get a good night's sleep. From the treetops, you can see that there's more than meets the eye about this mountain, because...."

And from there, new things are learned. Most likely, the party will Undertake a Perilous Journey to get to whatever's on the mountain, which will introduce all sorts of new things, and then there will be adventure on the mountain. Notice, the player created multiple things here (dwarven history, climbing techniques, personal connections), and yet all of it was in service to discovery. Filling in that blank on the map--which the GM likely did not have anything prepared for, originally--is part of the process of play, driven forward by player actions, but not simply one player narrating the full information about it. That's how Dungeon World works, like any PbtA game.
Maybe I'm missing something, but what you put in spoilers as a description of play sounds like just about every game of DnD (from Basic to 5e) that our table has ever played. I don't see anything in there that isn't supported or available to every table, just by...playing?

The DM, in my experience (on both sides of the table), never explains, nor has prepared everything. There are always going to be gaps. Those gaps can and are filled either ad hoc by the DM, the players around the table, or the players and DM off-table in between games where we talk about arcs, what is happening, what could happen, and theorize about what is going on in game.
 

You're right. It would be interesting to see how many tables believe they prioritise character's needs over the adventure or at least place them on equal footing.
How do you define that though? Because while I occasionally buy modules for ideas and concepts I always homebrew my games. The players are always given options on what goals they pursue. I come up with multiple story hooks and they decide which one they're going to pursue, often by setting up an offline ranked quiz. In addition, they're free to guide what they do during downtime which is typically months or even years between adventure arcs.

But I do ask that once the group has decided to follow a plot hook that we more-or-less stay on the rails (they're really, really wide rails) for the next session simply so I have time to prep. Things go completely orthogonal to what I had planned anyway, but it's generally close enough that I can adjust.

At the same time they don't get to invent lore, or at least not lore that I don't have editorial control over. Even then it's going to be lore associated to their history or theoretically a minor organization they're involved with (I'd be open but it doesn't happen). Their downtime activities have to be something their PC could accomplish and we'll run through success or failure together, typically at the game table.

So what's being prioritized? I always runs campaigns in my home campaign world. There's a lot of freedom to pursue different styles of campaigns depending on timeframe and region, but I'm not reinventing the wheel every time a new campaign starts. I'm just adding more detail to the existing wheel.

In any case, that last paragraph is a lot of why people don't add significant lore. It's a combination of desire, most of my players don't have the desire to add even if they enjoyed that aspect of the game, and the fact that I want the campaign world to be consistent. In addition I want a logical timeline and for all the moving pieces to interact in ways that make sense. At the smaller scale than world building it's about immersion, that a particular PC only influences the world with their direct interactions and decisions.
 

Maybe I'm missing something, but what you put in spoilers as a description of play sounds like just about every game of DnD (from Basic to 5e) that our table has ever played. I don't see anything in there that isn't supported or available to every table, just by...playing?

The DM, in my experience (on both sides of the table), never explains, nor has prepared everything. There are always going to be gaps. Those gaps can and are filled either ad hoc by the DM, the players around the table, or the players and DM off-table in between games where we talk about arcs, what is happening, what could happen, and theorize about what is going on in game.

For the most part I agree with you and I honestly feel like this is a result of the assumption that the vast majority of D&D players are running through rigid pre-written adventure paths... which as I stated earlier, I don't believe is the default playstyle. The issue I think is, as @hawkeyefan alluded to, the majority playstyle for D&D isn't confined to one specific playstyle but is instead people mixing and matching what works for them and their group... including many of the indie mechanics, techniques and processes.
 

Maybe I'm missing something, but what you put in spoilers as a description of play sounds like just about every game of DnD (from Basic to 5e) that our table has ever played. I don't see anything in there that isn't supported or available to every table, just by...playing?
The difference is, this is (very, very intentionally) exactly what it means to "play by the rules" of Dungeon World. That is, I as GM must pursue the Agendas (term for, more or less, the "goals" of running DW), follow the Principles (term for, more or less, the "rules" of being a GM), and obey the rules (e.g., the specific text of a character's move, if it requires specific GM actions.)

Essentially, Dungeon World was designed so that the rules themselves ARE the "best practices" expectations of playing D&D, because it's pretty much literally from a group of people who said, "Hey, wow, this Apocalypse World thing is pretty cool...wouldn't it be great if we could play the D&D of our childhoods with this? Oh...hey, we can. We just have to write it out."

These rules have been very carefully constructed to ensure that there is, in essentially all cases, a 1:1 correspondence between "play by the rules" and "exercise wise GM judgment, best practices, and mutual trust and respect between player and GM." This is not simply turning the invisible rulebook into a visible one. By having these things actually structured, present, accounted for, the players are emboldened to do as they like (within the limits of following the fiction and respecting the concept/premise), and GMs are likewise empowered to push things to their limits, because both sides can stop having to watch out for conflicts that easily fly under the radar with the invisible-rulebooks approach.

That's why you'll hear DW GMs tell you that you really, REALLY need to actually obey the rules. That you shouldn't be invoking "Rule Zero"--because doing so is akin to declaring your unilateral right to break from best-practices.

The DM, in my experience (on both sides of the table), never explains, nor has prepared everything. There are always going to be gaps. Those gaps can and are filled either ad hoc by the DM, the players around the table, or the players and DM off-table in between games where we talk about arcs, what is happening, what could happen, and theorize about what is going on in game.
Then you are 90% of the way to a "no-myth" game.

The only missing component is that the GM does not establish any background fiction ("myth") before the players begin making some kind of choices (e.g., what classes or races they will play, their characters' backstories, etc.) In a hardcore "no-myth" game, the GM attempts to never establish this sort of thing--nothing is true or false unless it is described "on camera." I don't run such games because I frankly don't understand them. There is some "myth" in my games--but I endeavor to keep it in terms of situations, forces, powers, etc.

As with the above, Dungeon World includes both the informal and formal means for doing this. Informal ones are like my example GM asking, "What do dwarves do in this situation?" and the player simply stating what is true about Dwarven society without any roll or permission. She is the Dwarf in the party, and thus the Expert on Dwarven things if a question comes up. Sometimes, there may be exceptions or the like, when the fiction calls for it, e.g. Dwarven secrets Kara never learned or heretical clans or the like. Formal structures, like Discern Realities, Spout Lore, the Bardic Knowledge class feature, or a handful of other things, provide more structure (and actual stakes) for the process of advancing or expanding what is in the world. As a consequence, they tend to allow greater latitude when successful, but have the possibility of revealing something the party would really rather be false ("reveal an unwelcome truth" being one of the hard GM moves in DW.)
 

Remove ads

Top