D&D General How much control do DMs need?

[pemerton]

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.

This sounds like an approach to RPGing which requires that the GM have lots of control.

 

[pemerton]

Decide to ignore the lich that is trying to take the crown from the rightful leader? Hope you don't mind an undead king.

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.

I don't really follow this. Hope you don't mind an undead king sounds like the events in the unfolding fiction as imagined by the GM loom pretty large!

 

[AnotherGuy]

This sounds like an approach to RPGing which requires that the GM have lots of control.

I don't disagree with this assessment.

 

[AnotherGuy]

I don't really follow this. Hope you don't mind an undead king sounds like the events in the unfolding fiction as imagined by the GM loom pretty large!

The comparison Oofta and I were making was in response to a description of @hawkeyefan's 5e D&D game where his table is playing TToEE module. Hawkeyefan described the campaign as it being about the Temple and their characters were playing second fiddle so to speak.

I would not say the game I'm running is like that. The character's goals and decisions override any adventure or module published or otherwise I'm running. If an undead king exists because of their decision to abandon a quest, it is only there because of internal consistency reasons. It would not be authentic to have the PCs tour the astral realm for 3-month period and have the lich waiting for them to return before making a move.
The unfolding fiction was not what was in question but rather the role and importance of the character.

 

[Oofta]

I don't really follow this. Hope you don't mind an undead king sounds like the events in the unfolding fiction as imagined by the GM loom pretty large!

PC choices have consequences. Their actions, or inactions, have an effect on the ongoing fiction of the world. That lich that wants to be king? That was just one thread they decided to not pursue. This can be large and small. For example if they treat a runaway with compassion, that runaway will remember. Does it ever intersect back with the PCs? Maybe, maybe not. I have plots and events going on all the time because it's a living and breathing world. So yes ... as a DM I am thinking of the fiction of the world, I'm not sure how to make it feel like a living breathing world otherwise.

But that's different from thinking in terms of a narrative for the group, I'm thinking of a narrative for the world. If the group moves on to other pastures, they may never even know that a lich wears a crown. I'll make note of it and it will become part of the ongoing history of the world which may have an impact on future campaigns. Or not.

It's kind of the same with PC goals and ambitions. I don't tailor the world around them even if I do bring things to their attention (either in game or with potential plot hooks) that may help them achieve their goals, but they aren't tailored to their goals. Besides, I find that PC's goals change as the campaign progresses, especially because I typically try to play to 20th level.

A bit ninja'd...

The comparison Oofta and I were making was in response to a description of @hawkeyefan's 5e D&D game where his table is playing TToEE module. Hawkeyefan described the campaign as it being about the Temple and their characters were playing second fiddle so to speak.

I would not say the game I'm running is like that. The character's goals and decisions override any adventure or module published or otherwise I'm running. If an undead king exists because of their decision to abandon a quest, it is only there because of internal consistency reasons. It would not be authentic to have the PCs tour the astral realm for 3-month period and have the lich waiting for them to return before making a move.
The unfolding fiction was not what was in question but rather the role and importance of the character.

I would also add to this that I don't run my campaign like a typical CRPG where events are always triggered off the PCs entering a room or pushing a button. If they're off pursuing side quests because it's what they're finding interesting, that's cool. It's just that while they're doing that the lich is also plotting and working their plans.

 

[Imaro]

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, this clarification helps. Though now I have even more questions, like... what do you actually do in this game? The GM can't create characters as needed while the game progresses... EVERY antagonist has already been created no matter how big or how small? I'll wait for answers to a few of these questions before proceeding with this part of the discussion.

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.

This is the process of play taken literally from the book Agon pg. 12

Game play begins when the heroes arrive at an island afflicted by strife. Each island provides an immediate contest upon arrival that establishes the situation and demands heroic action - like the opening teaser for a thrilling TV show.

After the initial conflict, the heroes explore the island, befriend allies, confront enemies, and attempt to overcome the trials that the strife has placed in their path.

Finally, the heroes face a battle to determine the ultimate destiny of the island - whether it is pulled out of despair or slips further into mystery.

Now I'm not going to discuss DitV because I'm not familiar with it but I am familiar with Agon so I'd like to keep the conversation centered on that game... the preparation of the island is the same general type of prep for an adventure one would do in D&D. You prep your trials, your NPC's, your rewards, your strife and your climactic battle.

EDIT: The main difference I see is in a single principle of AGON... which is do not deceive your players. But if that's the basis of prep being totally different from D&D I don't see it. It's a singular difference but on a high level scale they prep more similarly than different.

 

[clearstream]

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.

This view is supported also by Vincent Baker express goals prior to designing In a Wicked Age. He analyzes pre-play, play, post-play and makes design decisions intended to force focus on the game rather than the pregame.

Games like DW and AW have prep. DW has a list of around 100 pages of monsters. AW has a much shorter list, but still has one (threats, about 20 pages worth IIRC). I haven't played IaWA, but from what I know of the designer's intent and the descriptions of play supplied, I can easily accept that it's got nothing in common WRT prep.

 

[gorice]

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.

Kind of? I think it depends on which edition, and whether you actually follow the rules. Hardly anybody seems to use the official social encounter rules in the 5e DMG, but if you do, it suggests a very particular kind of prep-heavy play where the DM is repeatedly referencing NPC statblocks (though none of the ones in the MM actually contain the necessary BIFTS....). Likewise, the PHB is crystal clear that players only describe their characters' actions in the fiction, and the DM decides when to call for checks.

To be clear: I don't really agree with the idea that there is a single set of 'best practices' that applies to 5th edition, if only because it's kind of a wishy-washy game. But if you accept the implicit style of play that's actually in the rulebooks (trad with lots of prep), that does narrow things down a lot.

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

If a classic 1e dungeon crawl, a 5e railroad, and a radically homebrewed game are all 'playing D&D', then 'playing D&D' must mean something other than playing D&D. What kind of thing is that?

 

[Clint_L]

But that's different from thinking in terms of a narrative for the group, I'm thinking of a narrative for the world. If the group moves on to other pastures, they may never even know that a lich wears a crown. I'll make note of it and it will become part of the ongoing history of the world which may have an impact on future campaigns. Or not.

I wonder if you have hit upon a central distinction of D&D-style games that goes back to the premise of this thread. It seems to be that D&D campaigns are mostly about the creative expression of the Dungeon Master. Players mostly contribute and enjoy creative expression in response to how they build their characters and how they react to the situations the benevolent DM puts them in.

This notion of an ongoing world that exists outside of the experiences and activities of the player characters is something that I very much enjoy about DMing, and is probably why I don't much care for running pre-written campaigns. It's a Tolkien-esque approach to narrative, which makes sense, since Tolkien is deep in the roots of the game (yes, I know Gygax claimed to not be a big fan but come on).

Other styles of RPG tend to focus on the story first, so that the game world only really exists as a venue for the player characters. You don't really build out a Token-style campaign world in advance, it more comes into being through the choices and actions of the players.

Right now, I am working on altering the balance of these methods for my home campaign. At school, my games are very DM-led. They have to be, because I am mostly just trying to help the students learn the rules of the games, and the campaigns are short. But at home, I am encouraging the players to add more and more of their own ideas to the narrative, and changing the world based on what they add and offer. I do have things percolating behind the scenes, but if I had a great plot thread like the potential lich king that you describe, I would probably put a pin in it until the players decided to pursue that thread.

 

[Clint_L]

TLDR: In D&D creative expression is given vast scope for the DM, and narrowly constrained for the players. This is not a criticism; typically the DM is the person who wants to do world-building, and many players are very happy to focus on designing their characters and developing their stories.

One drawback for me as a DM is that, when I plot too tightly, the games themselves aren't as fun. The joy of the live game, for me, is the unexpected, and I love it when I can shut up for half an hour in the game and the players take charge of the story. Running a campaign gives me the creative pleasure of design and building, but this happens outside of the game itself, for the most part. When the players start driving the story I get a similar pleasure to reading a good book, where I don't know for sure what will happen next, even if I have an overall sense of where this is going.