D&D General How much control do DMs need?

[Snarf Zagyg]

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."

The big disconnect that people have in these conversations, and the source of such ... lack of mutual comprehension, is here.

At a fundamental level, there are those who truly believe that the rules necessarily should dictate the play. That, um, the rules matter. Which is a totally valid way of looking at it.

On the other hand, you could have the following three scenarios:
I'm playing AD&D 2e, but we don't use dice.
I'm playing 5e, but we've adopted skill challenges and a homebrew Warlord to make it play a lot more like 4e.
I'm playing OD&D, but the party is currently on another plane involved with Superheroes.

All of these, and more, fall under the rubric of "playing D&D." In fact, this diversity in playing is precisely why we avoid "One True Way-ism" on the forum. So the idea that Dungeon World can somehow encompass the "best practices" of playing D&D is not just incorrect to some of us, it is laughably wrong- which is why many of us bounce right off of it. That doesn't make it bad! It's a perfectly great experience ... if that's the exact experience you are looking for. I am quite sure that DW is a great experience for those looking for that exact experience!

But it illustrates the fundamental divide and the frustration in these conversations. It's just people talking past each other. It's why you get people claiming that D&D has to be this (it MUST be a Moldvay map & key system!) or that (it MUST be a dungeon crawl) in order to compare it to some other ruleset, without the understanding that D&D's differences come up not in the design, per se, but in the application in play.

IMO, etc.

 

[gorice]

Right. Reading these arguments, I think part of the problem is that different people mean different things when they say 'D&D'. If you mean a particular edition of the game and its rules, then the accusation of 'one-true-wayism' is nonsensical -- there is one true way, they wrote it down! You can always change it, but that's the game as written.

'D&D' as a nebulous social grouping, or a cypher for RPGs as such, or a token of brand loyalty, is impervious to the reality of any given ruleset or style of play.

 

[pemerton]

@Imaro, there is no prep in In A Wicked Age that resembles D&D prep.

The players sit down. They agree, via some social method, which Oracles to use. They draw cards (who does this is not specified by the rules - it's assumed that a group of people can work out how to get 4 cards drawn from a deck of playing cards). They look at the cards and read the Oracles.

Then they go around the table taking turns to note characters expressly or impliedly emerging from the Oracles, until everyone's happy that it's done. Then they allocate these as I said above (again, using a social process - there is no rule governing choosing). They assign their stats, right up any particular strengths, and play starts.

The next session begins the same way. The only difference is that the player who achieved a particular status last session (I won't bore you with the details: it's a combination of luck and choice) gets to choose one of the Oracles (in lieu of random draw) and there are some rules for bringing back an old character rather than having to play a new one- those rules reference the notes that are generated by monitoring the status that determines who gets the make the choice of Oracle.

Another game with no lists of the D&D sort, and for which the prep is very different from D&D (for instance, no maps are prepared) is Agon. Unlike In A Wicked Age there are persistent PCs. But like In A Wicked Age a NPC or creature or inanimate obstacle (eg a mountain or a whirlpool) is mechanically just a dice pool.

In Agon the GM has very great control over where the PCs find themselves and hence what situation confronts them. But almost no control over the outcome of that situation, or what it means for the PCs' quest to return home from the Trojan War, mostly because at no point is that prep reference to establish consequences as it routinely is in D&D.

 

[Imaro]

Right. Reading these arguments, I think part of the problem is that different people mean different things when they say 'D&D'. If you mean a particular edition of the game and its rules, then the accusation of 'one-true-wayism' is nonsensical -- there is one true way, they wrote it down! You can always change it, but that's the game as written.

The problem with this assessment is, the discussion hasn't largely been about rules, but instead process of play... Which some games incorporate as part of the rules. D&D has a very general, high level play loop which can accommodate a ton of variation in the details of a particular game still following said play loop.

'D&D' as a nebulous social grouping, or a cypher for RPGs as such, or a token of brand loyalty, is impervious to the reality of any given ruleset or style of play.

Not sure anyone in the discussion has really been speaking to D&D as any of these...

 

[AnotherGuy]

How do you define that though?

That is tricky. It is far more simplified in the example @hawkeyefan provided for the game he is participating in.

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.

From your summarised description, I would say the characters in your campaign are subordinate to the adventure, but I admit there are many unknown factors in my basing my opinion some of which are:

• What is the risk of perma death;
• Can the adventure be interrupted to fulfil a character arc;
• Can the adventure be altogether abandoned;
• Is a character permitted to sabotage himself or the adventure for character reasons. i.e. For instance in my current campaign, the cleric was suffering from a crisis of faith (established through the course of play over many sessions) and it so happened that during a rather pivotal part of the story he "sabotaged" his character whereby he had limited usefulness in an encounter with a BBEG (i.e. he had not prayed for his divine spells).

 

[Imaro]

@Imaro, there is no prep in In A Wicked Age that resembles D&D prep.

The players sit down. They agree, via some social method, which Oracles to use. They draw cards (who does this is not specified by the rules - it's assumed that a group of people can work out how to get 4 cards drawn from a deck of playing cards). They look at the cards and read the Oracles.

Then they go around the table taking turns to note characters expressly or impliedly emerging from the Oracles, until everyone's happy that it's done. Then they allocate these as I said above (again, using a social process - there is no rule governing choosing). They assign their stats, right up any particular strengths, and play starts.

The next session begins the same way. The only difference is that the player who achieved a particular status last session (I won't bore you with the details: it's a combination of luck and choice) gets to choose one of the Oracles (in lieu of random draw) and there are some rules for bringing back an old character rather than having to play a new one- those rules reference the notes that are generated by monitoring the status that determines who gets the make the choice of Oracle.

This is literally pre-play prep. I'm not trying to be argumentative but I'm really not seeing how you're claiming this is not prep. It uses a different system from D&D and is more collaborative but the general premise is the same.

Another game with no lists of the D&D sort, and for which the prep is very different from D&D (for instance, no maps are prepared) is Agon. Unlike In A Wicked Age there are persistent PCs. But like In A Wicked Age a NPC or creature or inanimate obstacle (eg a mountain or a whirlpool) is mechanically just a dice pool.

You keep doing this... interchanging prep with lists... which one are we discussing? I'm not claiming the prep isn't different, they are different games... however it is still pre-prep in that system of the same type you would do to prepare for a D&D game.

In Agon the GM has very great control over where the PCs find themselves and hence what situation confronts them. But almost no control over the outcome of that situation, or what it means for the PCs' quest to return home from the Trojan War, mostly because at no point is that prep reference to establish consequences as it routinely is in D&D.

Ok I have Agon 2nd edition... and form what I remember... The GM preps an island, that is afflicted by some type of problem. There is an initial conflict when the heroes arrive... exploration of the island with a focus on the overcoming of the issues the overarching problem has caused and a climactic battle. This is all prepared beforehand, and there are lists of pre-prepped islands in the actual book. Does it specifically have lists of monsters... no, but it has pre-prepped items of it's own (mainly islands, npc's, problems, etc.).

 

[Oofta]

In my decades of play with a wide variety of DMs I've had exactly 2.5* DMs I'd never play with again unless they significantly changed their DMing style. Some have been mediocre, some have been fantastic. Most are pretty decent.

Why people think the average DM needs to be constrained to a specific set of rules so they don't abuse their poor beleaguered players is beyond me. Even the mediocre DMs were mediocre more because their style just didn't match mine

Okay, the .5 is kind of a joke, but I did have a DM in public play that for some unknown reason hated me from the moment I sat at the table. Jovial and friendly with everyone else, when it came to me I got the equivalent of "What the *** do you want, you ****." No clue why. But again, no amount of rules would have changed his attitude.

 

[Oofta]

That is tricky. It is far more simplified in the example @hawkeyefan provided for the game he is participating in.

From you summarised description, I would say the characters in your campaign are subordinate to the adventure, but I admit there are many unknown factors in my basing my opinion some of which are:

• What is the risk of perma death;

Decided by the PCs during session 0, although it's never off the table. Generally fairly low.

• Can the adventure be interrupted to fulfil a character arc;

I'll try to throw things in for character goals, but it's up to the player to convince other to go along with them.

• Can the adventure be altogether abandoned;

Sure. I don't have a campaign plan, I have events and actors. Decide to ignore the lich that is trying to take the crown from the rightful leader? Hope you don't mind an undead king. Goes the other way as well. Campaigns veer off into directions I never expected with the PCs coming up with options to defeat the BBEG or succeed far exceeding my expectations.

• Is a character permitted to sabotage himself or the adventure for character reasons. i.e. For instance in my current campaign, the cleric was suffering from a crisis of faith (established through the course of play over many sessions) and it so happened that during a rather pivotal part of the story he "sabotaged" his character whereby he had limited usefulness in an encounter with a BBEG (i.e. he had not prayed for his divine spells).

What the PCs do is up to the player. Something I make clear in my session 0 is that I don't want to run a game for evil PCs so in a worst case scenario (which has happened) the PC becomes an NPC. But other than that? Up to them what they do.

What doesn't happen is that they don't create major chunks of lore without my input and editorial control.

 

[AnotherGuy]

Decided by the PCs during session 0, although it's never off the table. Generally fairly low.

I'll try to throw things in for character goals, but it's up to the player to convince other to go along with them.


Sure. I don't have a campaign plan, I have events and actors. Decide to ignore the lich that is trying to take the crown from the rightful leader? Hope you don't mind an undead king. Goes the other way as well. Campaigns veer off into directions I never expected with the PCs coming up with options to defeat the BBEG or succeed far exceeding my expectations.



What the PCs do is up to the player. Something I make clear in my session 0 is that I don't want to run a game for evil PCs so in a worst case scenario (which has happened) the PC becomes an NPC. But other than that? Up to them what they do.

What doesn't happen is that they don't create major chunks of lore without my input and editorial control.

Okay seems we run similar styles then, based on that I would then change my opinion on the table's characters being subordinate to the adventure. But that is just my opinion.

I have probably given my players a little more narrative control than you. They have each created several NPCs + their relationships within their local city, plus they are free to create write-ups during downtime. I'm not talking anything wild, but they have a sense of freedom there which I enjoy because it helps with me pulling things that interest them into play.

 

[pemerton]

This is literally pre-play prep. I'm not trying to be argumentative but I'm really not seeing how you're claiming this is not prep. It uses a different system from D&D and is more collaborative but the general premise is the same.

<snip>

it is still pre-prep in that system of the same type you would do to prepare for a D&D game

The general premise has almost nothing in common.

In Gygax's explanation in his DMG, in Moldvay's explanation, in the 5e example of play in the Basic PDF with the keep and the gargoyles and so on, the general premise is that the GM has written up some setting in advance and then starts describing that to the players, thus prompting them to declare actions. In both Gygax's and the 5e example of play, some of the earliest declared actions are requests for more information (by inspecting things, poking at things, etc).

Perhaps I've not described In A Wicked Age with sufficient clarity, but no one does anything before the group sits down to play their session. There are no GM maps or notes. There are no secret NPCs, because all the characters have been listed by the group as part of the "interpretation" of the Oracles. There are no actions of the inspecting things, poking at things etc variety, that oblige the GM to reveal more of what they have prepped.

I find it hard to think of anything more different from how D&D and the role of prep is presented that still counts as a RPG.

Ok I have Agon 2nd edition... and form what I remember... The GM preps an island, that is afflicted by some type of problem. There is an initial conflict when the heroes arrive... exploration of the island with a focus on the overcoming of the issues the overarching problem has caused and a climactic battle. This is all prepared beforehand, and there are lists of pre-prepped islands in the actual book. Does it specifically have lists of monsters... no, but it has pre-prepped items of it's own (mainly islands, npc's, problems, etc.).

There is no "exploration of the island" in Agon 2e as there is "exploration of the gargoyles" in the 5e D&D example of play. The Agon procedures of play are pretty clear. The Strife Player presents each island—its strife, opponents, and other characters—by revealing the situation, asking leading questions, and judging contests. Agon quite closely resembles, in this respect, Dogs in the Vineyard. But not 5e D&D-type prep.

Unlike DitV, it has a more stylised sequence on each island: Arrival => Trials => Battle. Exploration doesn't figure there.

The Keep on the Borderlands and The Village of Hommlett have NPCs with problems etc - that's pretty standard fiction - but as far as play is concerned they are a type of puzzle for the players to discover or unravel (like, who's the spy? is the friendly priest really a friend? etc).

Contrast Vincent Baker on how to reveal the Town in DitV (pp 138-9):

The town you’ve made has secrets. It has, quite likely, terrible secrets — blood and sex and murder and damnation.

But you the GM, you don’t have secrets a’tall. Instead, you have cool things — bloody, sexy, murderous, damned cool things — that you can’t wait to share.

There’s this interesting hump I have to get over every time I GM Dogs — maybe it’ll go away eventually. It’s like this:

The PCs arrive in town. I have someone meet them. They ask how things are going. The person says that, well, things are going okay, mostly. The PCs say, “mostly?”

And I’m like “uh oh. They’re going to figure out what’s wrong in the town! Better stonewall. Poker face: on!” And then I’m like “wait a sec. I want them to figure out what’s wrong in the town. In fact, I want to show them what’s wrong! Otherwise they’ll wander around waiting for me to drop them a clue, I’ll have my dumb poker face on, and we’ll be bored stupid the whole evening.”

So instead of having the NPC say “oh no, I meant that things are going just fine, and I shut up now,” I have the NPC launch into his or her tirade. “Things are awful! This person’s sleeping with this other person not with me, they murdered the schoolteacher, blood pours down the meeting house walls every night!”

...Or sometimes, the NPC wants to lie, instead. That’s okay! I have the NPC lie. You’ve watched movies. You always can tell when you’re watching a movie who’s lying and who’s telling the truth. And wouldn’t you know it, most the time the players are looking at me with skeptical looks, and I give them a little sly nod that yep, she’s lying. And they get these great, mean, tooth-showing grins — because when someone lies to them, ho boy does it not work out.

Then the game goes somewhere.​

The remarks about "being bored" and the game "going somewhere" are remarks about DitV: it is not a game which has procedures for "dropping clues" and the players finding them. (Contrast, in otherwise quite different ways, both Keep on the Borderlands and Trail of Cthulhu.) For a game of DitV to go somewhere, the GM has to reveal the problems, not make them objects of discovery. Agon is the same.

This is a very different orientation to prep from a game like the one presented in that opening example of the 5e Basic pdf.