D&D General How much control do DMs need?

[hawkeyefan]

Exactly, as combat mode is one of the key situation the rules of D&D 5ed is not really delegating rule making power to the DM. Rule 0 is technically still in play, but the procedures at work in this mode is so tightly defined by the book that the DM cannot really say anything without coming in direct conflict with explicitely written word. This as opposed to the out of combat mode where the words mostly step out of the rules making, and rather uses suggestive language.

Right... if a GM usurped the combat rules, they better have a strong reason for doing so, or else be ready to face some dissatisfied or frustrated players.

Now, I'm not saying that the rest of the rules need to be as complex and varied as combat, but I don't think having clear procedures is a bad thing. I think it was @gorice who mentioned the NPC interaction rules that almost no one uses. They're clear in the DMG, but as was pointed out, almost no NPCs in the published adventures or monster books include Traits, Ideals, Bonds, and Flaws.

That's just really strange.

The other key situation i see where the written text actually is opiniated to a point where it is hard for a DM to come with rules assertions for similar reasons is character creation and advancement.

How so? I expect I agree, but I'm curious to hear your reasons.

I think the above serves as a rough answer to your question. If you allow players to create a character according to the character creation and advancement rules of a D&D edition, and accept to follow the rules it lay out for combat - I would say you are recognizably playing D&D. If you make any modifications to the procedures gouverning any of those two aspects of play, I would say we are looking at a somewhat different game.

I remember not too long back there was a discussion about B/X D&D and how much more focused it was than 5e, and why... and someone was arguing that wasn't really the case, and when asked why they explained it was becuase they've never used inventory/encumbrance rules.

And I was left thinking well of course they seem the same if you ignored the rules that may have made them seem different.

 

[Imaro]

I don't think anyone said anything about how the vast majority of folks play 5e. I would say a significant number of folks clearly do so, and I would point to the sales of the adventure books and the significant number of streamed games you can find on youtube and other places online where people are doing exactly that.

I think it's been implied if not outright stated quite a bit in this thread.

Funnily enough the top D&D streamer for years...Critical Role... doesn't use a pre-published setting or a pre-published adventure.

So what do the sales of the adventure look like in comparison to the actual sales of corebooks... because that would be a better determiner of how many groups are actually playing that way than saying well they sell good. How many are then using those adventure to strip mine for material, only to read and never play and so on. I think looking at the fact that te adventure sell (and we're not even sure if they are good sales in comparison to rules and supplement books) really isn't evidence of any type of default playstyle.

Additionally, I'd suggest that the adventures are a model for many people in how to run a game, and so they influence many folks who create their own settings and adventures.

I'd suggest campaign settings are... two different things.

The adventures are clearly a significant factor in how people play.

You've given no real solid evidence to back this up.

 

[hawkeyefan]

I think it's been implied if not outright stated quite a bit in this thread.

Funnily enough the top D&D streamer for years...Critical Role... doesn't use a pre-published setting or a pre-published adventure.

So what do the sales of the adventure look like in comparison to the actual sales of corebooks... because that would be a better determiner of how many groups are actually playing that way than saying well they sell good. How many are then using those adventure to strip mine for material, only to read and never play and so on. I think looking at the fact that te adventure sell (and we're not even sure if they are good sales in comparison to rules and supplement books) really isn't evidence of any type of default playstyle.



I'd suggest campaign settings are... two different things.



You've given no real solid evidence to back this up.

You're right, and I don't feel the need to! I'm not saying what you seem to think I'm saying.

If you want to deny that the adventure books are influential... the books that create the shared experience which WotC folks have cited as one of the core D&D experiences... feel free!

 

[Imaro]

You're right, and I don't feel the need to! I'm not saying what you seem to think I'm saying.

If you want to deny that the adventure books are influential... the books that create the shared experience which WotC folks have cited as one of the core D&D experiences... feel free!

Again... I am speaking to those claiming pre-published, railroad adventures are the default playstyle of D&D. Plenty of things can be influential... but claiming something has some influence and claiming it defines something are 2 different things. Which are you claiming?

 

[Oofta]

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.

I think people can be as creative as the DM in some ways, but otherwise I agree. Except that "benevolent DM" sounds a bit ... patriarchal?

I will say that if someone wants to play, say, an elf in my campaign I'd guide them through a series of questions. What kind of elf, first and foremost. Based on that I have a few general options, now which origin location makes the most sense? Based on that here's my outline (which may either have a high amount of detailed history or just an outline note or two) of how you can fill in your backstory. If people want to come up with something complex we'll chat back and forth ahead of time offline and come up with something.

But honestly? Most people seem to just want to play an orphan that knows no one and has no connection.

Spoiler: Meanwhile my PC

I made a PC (with the blessing of the DM) who's pretending to be a sailor who emigrated to the mountains because he's trying to escape his father. The father who actually was a sailor that he idolized that ended up wanting to sacrifice my PC in a dark ritual. As far as I know he did sacrifice my younger sister. Did he? No clue. BTW I took keen mind for the sole purpose of not being able to forget the words of the ritual book I glanced through. He's using an accent I associate with a series of islands to the west but he's really from the far north and the only time he was on a ship was when he stowed away to escape.

I'm not going to make it a novel, I'm not going to have grand exploits as a 1st level PC, but he does have a history to justify his "Haunted" background.

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.

Putting the lich story on hold is likely one of the biggest differences here. I might, I might not. Partly depends on how far I had advanced that particular plot hook and what I think the impact and future potential hooks it could lead to. I will also add that I do give people options what they want to pursue, and they can always pitch campaign arcs based on something else going on or even just some personal goal.

 

[AnotherGuy]

Yeah, the Temple of Elemental Evil game is about the adventure site and the goings on there. Once we resolve the threat (which seems to be to deal with the evil powers that are present in the Temple), the game will be over, and we'll move on to a new campaign with new characters.

Regarding your list, I don't know if I agree with all of them. I think the biggest questions relate to your second and third points... what is play about, how is that brought up in play, and who decides these things? Those seem to be largely related to the idea of control as it pertains to the game.

Yup, this reflects pretty much that the adventure is foremost as you recycle characters for new adventures.
In a long campaign, adventures come and go, while the characters remain.
So, when I ask can the adventure be halted or abandoned in favour of something else (i.e. character arc) - that would be at the behest of the characters. They would decide (via the players). That would mean first priority is given to the characters over the adventure.

The fourth option I provided means the social contract that exists between the players at the table is that each person is allowed to place the development of their character above that of the adenture and even the party. I would view that as a level of control as it pertains to the game.

 

[hawkeyefan]

Again... I am speaking to those claiming pre-published, railroad adventures are the default playstyle of D&D. Plenty of things can be influential... but claiming something has some influence and claiming it defines something are 2 different things. Which are you claiming?

I said they're influential. No one that I've seen has said they define the 5e experience.

They're a big part of play for many people and there's plenty of evidence to support that.

I'd also add that, as models of how the game is supposed to be, they likely also have an indirect influence that can't be measured.

 

[Oofta]

...
I don't think that's what it's about. As I said, I'm playing in a 5e game with pretty standard levels of GM authority. I don't think I'm being abused nor am I beleaguered.

You specifically may not, it's the impression I get from other posters at times. If it wasn't clear, I was only addressing one specific detail on this thread. The idea that we have to have rules to constrain the DM. I disagree, even if you want a more collaborative campaign than I run all the DM has to discuss it with the group and work out the best way to make that happen.

There's going to be limits with the structure of D&D of course based just on the flow of the game, but there's plenty of ways you can make D&D more collaborative if that's what the group wants.

 

[gorice]

I can't argue what you think. But if you give me two options and examples supporting both options without explicitely telling me the process is A or B... I think looking at it as a choice (especially sense the general rules support this) is exactly what the options are supposed to be.



All I can say is that I've run off the cuff games of 5e without all this extraordinarily heavy prep being done... and I'd wager I'm not the only one. SO I guess our experiences differ. Just to be clear... because you need something doesn't mean everyone needs it. As I stated earlier I've never run a pre-made adventure, I usually create my own monsters and homebrew my setting and I doesn't take excessive prep... unless I want to spend alot of time on it.

As to the "railroad" comment... plenty of people run sandboxes, hexcrawls and point crawls using 5e that aren't railroads so I'm not sure where this idea is coming from either. Actually I think it touches on something I said before... there is this contingent of non/occasional D&D players who seem to think D&D play is defined by pre-made adventures being run as rigid railroads... when that's not the case. Of course they can continue to believe that and there's nothing I or anyone else can do to dissuade them but I'd suggest if people are saying they run the game differently... perhaps you should believe them.




Could GURPS be used to run a dungeon crawl, a homebrewed game and a railroad adventure? If not why? If yes...but how?

This is turning into a bunch of tangents within tangents, so I'm going to try and clarify my position rather than argue details.

On the big question: I've never played GURPS, so I have no idea. My crucial point is that, if you read the actual text, different editions of D&D are very different games. Like, comparing b/x, 4e and 5e, their procedures and expectations for play are incompatible. A bunch of 5e kids bringing their beloved OCs into a b/x meatgrinder are going to have a very bad time. So, if you want to say that it's all just D&D and I'm being pedantic, I want to know what you think D&D really is. What is the core of D&D? When does something become, or cease to be, D&D?

On improv, prep, and railroads: I want to be clear that other people's prep (maps, monsters, generators) is still prep, as far as I'm concerned. I never run published adventures, but they are arguably one of the main official teaching tools -- and what they teach is railroady trad play. You can do different things with 5e (I certainly have), but this gets back to the main question of when 5e is 5e. If I had a dollar for every time someone insisted that they used 5e for dungeon crawls, and then explained how they removed half the game and added a whole new set of rules in order to actually play...

[edit] I suppose I should give my own definition of when a game is not itself. Which is... When the procedures of play and experience of play are no longer the same? Something like that?

 

[Oofta]

I said they're influential. No one that I've seen has said they define the 5e experience.

They're a big part of play for many people and there's plenty of evidence to support that.

I'd also add that, as models of how the game is supposed to be, they likely also have an indirect influence that can't be measured.

Are they models of how the game is suppose to be played? I know a lot of DMs use them like that, but there are restrictions and limitations on what you can do with a module. It's certainly one way. But then when they try to more of a sandbox style campaign, people complain about that as well.