D&D General How much control do DMs need?

[gorice]

Two readily identified positions on this question are formalist (if the rules are changed, then the game is not being played... a different game is) and non-formalist (what game is played is essentially a normative determination.)

@Imaro seems to adopt a non-formalist position. 5e D&D rules run to hundreds of pages. I don't think anyone plays every rule exactly correctly (or even knows every rule, in my experience.) It's extremely unlikely that any two game of 5e will be identical on the matter of rules. Is there a change where 5e is no longer played? I believe the answer to that is "yes" there will be a point where some abundance of rules are changed and the normal view would be that a new game exists.

I can give some concrete examples. Chivalry and Sorcery is documented to have arisen out of an abundance of change to D&D for the author's home campaign. I think most folk would agree that C&S is a different game from D&D of that era. 2nd edition D&D is a version of D&D, and although it is recognisably D&D, it is recognisably not any other edition of D&D. However, a passerby might just say that folk playing 2nd edition, C&S, or 5th edition are playing D&D. You can see that what counts as playing a given game is normative.

D&D doesn't come with a fixed, written set of principles or agendas. And it expressly authorises folk to change the rules. It offers optional and variant rules. What you are asking for may be a valid question for some RPGs. There is no satisfying answer for D&D.

So, let us look at that a bit.

You ask folks to "actually read the rules" - we will set aside the possible condescension of that suggestion for the moment - "and you will see they are not the same thing."

Well, of course they aren't exactly the same thing. That's trivial. But we then get to how meaningful the differences are, and upon which differences your argument rests and what you are asserting about those differences.

So, if you are saying, "X and Y are different in <this specific way>, and that is terribly meaningful and it means <specific thing about play>..." and folks disagree with your assessment, you will get pushback. Those asserted meanings often look a lot like gatekeeping, asserting a right and a wrong way to play - which is typically coincidentally aligned to the speaker's own preferences.

To which the collected answer is usually of the form, "For crying out loud, stop telling people how to have their own fun already!



Well, yes, that'll happen when you try to nail people down to defining it as one single thing, when... it isn't one single thing in application.

D&D is a set of rules that can be applied to play an RPG. Those rules are not explicitly proscriptive about what kind of game it can be, or what the goals or style of play will be. As a practical matter we can allow that those rules are better at supporting some styles than others. But, folks have a good time using them over a wide range of playstyles.

Right now, I'm playing in one game that's very dungeon-crawley, combat-on-a-map every session, where most problems are solved by deadly force of arms, and a few are solved by the party Paladin rolling a natural 20 on a persuasion check, much to the party bard's chagrin.

Meanwhile, in a game I am running, the party is almost level 4, and the only things they have killed are two goblins and a gelatinous cube.

Both are very obviously D&D to anyone observing. But they aren't really the same either. Players are having a fine time in both.

Do not confuse "ineffable" with "flexible".

Right, so, I think we can usefully distinguish between the various rules texts for D&D ('D&D1'), actual instances of play with all their myriad variations ('D&D2'), and the idea of D&D as such ('D&D3'). The problem is: what is the relationship between these three things?

To me, it's self-evident that these categories influence one another, but not completely so. It's also evident that each contains radical amounts of variation (very different rules texts, instances of play, and ideas about what the game actually is).

This means that I don't think you can meaningfully discuss D&D without drilling down to the specifics of the D&D1 and D&D2 in use in a particular instance. My feeling is that people in these discussions often want to start at their personal D&D3, and then take umbrage when something contradicts it.

Anyway, I should probably start a new thread when I want to discuss this sort of thing.

 

[clearstream]

In which version of D&D? I think that the DM is constrained much more in some editions of the game than others. Or at least, is meant to be with the game as written.

If you mean 5e, then it's difficult to answer because the authority of the DM is never explicitly stated... but there are a lot of statements that indicate that they have total authority over the world, the rules, and the adventures. If we take those to be accurate, then the answer is no, any constraints on the DM removes some amount of their authority. It may not always be given to players... sometimes it may be given to the dice or may just be removed... but it's always a reduction in DM authority.

What I mean is that one can give up authority over one facet, while accepting no constraints on one's authority over other facets. Or at least, that's my question. DMs almost always (maybe always) accept some constraints.

 

[hawkeyefan]

What I mean is that one can give up authority over one facet, while accepting no constraints on one's authority over other facets. Or at least, that's my question. DMs almost always (maybe always) accept some constraints.

So you're asking if a DM can accept constraints in one area of the game, and not others?

Yes, I would think so. I mean, some replies here make me think it may be impossible, but in theory, yes.

 

[Oofta]

You could just look up what I was replying to:





That's the point.

Supposedly "flexible toolbox system" lacks a very basic tool: ability to adjust the level of detail on per situation basis.

A vehicle can be very flexible, it's not inflexible because it does not fly. No system can do everything equally well, but people have explained how they would handle your gotcha question. What I've done in the past is a series of skill challenges with people losing HP or sacrificing some other resource (typically spell slots or single use magic items such as potions) to counter failure. As they explain in the Role of the Dice chapter in the DMG other DMs might just narrate it and randomize some type of resource loss. I'm hoping they expand more on these kind of things with the 2024 edition, but the tools and alternatives are there.

There's a lot of different types of RPGs and D&D happens to fall into a middle ground between something like GURPS and Gloomhaven. For me it works, as it does for millions of people. As with Lego sets I can either build my own or I can buy a kit/module to build something specific. What the game doesn't do is tell me how to solve every possible thing under the sun, it gives the DM the tools to come up with alternative solutions.

 

[Lanefan]

Right, this is typically how my D&D games work, though there's a bit of a spectrum.

Let me ask you, though... do you think that this is a choice you make? Do you think it's a product of the way D&D itself plays? A combo of both? Something else?

Mostly a choice I make, I think; I'd far rather the focus be on what the party does as a whole when they're together as a party - i.e. when they're in the field - rather than on the arc of a specific character.

Further, on those occasions where an adventure or two have focused on a single character (e.g. character X is given a quest and the party agree to help out with it), invariably that focus character is the one who dies at the next possible opportunity. Lesson well learned.

I'm sure you do. But I think it's far better for new GMs to start small and to set achievable goals. To do what is actually needed for play, and not design an entire world before play even begins.

Sure, and that's good advice that should also be in the DMG. But the tools and guidelines for all-in worldbuilding should also be there, as ideally that's what those starting-out DMs will eventually end up wanting to do.

I never said not to bother. I said to focus on what's needed. I don't need to know all the far off lands in the world and the major exports of all countries and all that crap to start play. I need some characters and some situations, and a few locations.

It seems so, right? I've done it this way in the past, and what it ended up being was short-term gain for long-term pain.

To start, all you need is an adventure site or two, a town or two, and nearby areas or regions or nations where the different species live (e.g. an Elven land, a Dwarven land, etc.), all reasonably close close enough to the starting point that it makes sense these disparate PCs would meet there. And so, you might take a few days and bang out a detailed area of a few square miles, a less-detailed area the size of Seattle, and a roughly-sketched-out area about half the size of Washington State; and away you go into the campaign.

However - one hopes that eventually the campaign will go long enough and get big enough that the PCs literally start broadening their horizons and exploring to other parts of the setting...which means not only do you then have to come up with those other parts but you also have to find a way to make that initial little bit you started with (half of Wash.) fit in to the bigger picture (all of North America plus the Pacific Ocean). And that's where it falls down, I've found - that initial little bit ends up standing out like a sore thumb, mostly due to having to shoehorn a lot of a world's elements and cultures into a very small area for reasons of early-days playability and variety. (unless you force all the PCs to be of the same species/culture)

And so I learned - via some long-term trial and error - to sketch out a much bigger area up front. There's still lots of blank areas on the map, even some fairly close to where they started out 15 real-world years ago, but I can provide the sense of a bigger world right from the start, and if-when they go somewhere I've some idea what they'll find when they get there.

 

[Lanefan]

Side quest is a CRPG thing. It just means that what I had envisioned as the probable main quest outline isn't what the PCs decide to follow.

It can also mean the players in-character proactively deciding "We're just not strong enough to do this any more - those Giants are slaughtering us. So let's take on an unrelated mission that with luck is a bit less dangerous and use that to beef ourselves up a bit. After that, we can get back to dealing with the Giants."

In other words, they side-quest themselves. See this many a time.

 

[Lanefan]

OK. What enemies does D&D prescribe to fight?

And more generally, what experience D&D is carefully designed to deliver? Is every single aspect of it grown in a lab, specifically to drive forward a singluar artistic vision of WotC?

If D&D was designed such that the characters only fought prescribed enemies and to deliver a single artistic vision, it would become no more than a board game: every campaign the same, with the only difference being whether the characters/players win, lose, or draw against the prescribed challenges presented.

Yawn.

Because there's no design in D&D. DM is doing 100% of the work, while WotC are doing nothing.

They're doing different things that are the designers of a board game or CRPG, but they're not doing nothing.

WotC (and TSR before them) aren't in the business of designing finished products when it comes to game design, they're in the business of designing frameworks and then giving tools and guidelines on what to use those frameworks for.

Analogy is a builder who - instead of building a fully-finished house that's just like all the other houses - builds a solid framework, provides a bunch of finishing materials and instructions-as-guidelines, and tells the owner to use those materials to make the house their own.

 

[loverdrive]

Yes it is doing the vast majority of the work for you, or do you expect me to believe that you are programming it to merge two photographs together, or going in and manually moving every pixel yourself. You are probably doing less than 100th of what is happening with the program.

So, if I abandon Photoshop completely and turn to my second favorite medium: oil paint, would the canvas manufacturer, the paints manufacturer, the brush manufacturer, the lights manufacturer and the people who originally built the bloc I'm currently living in do the "vast majority of the work"? Oh, and let's not forget all the people involved in ludicrously complex logistics of delivering all this stuff to me.

No. It's asinine.

"Мастер-класс" doesn't paint my paintings. I do. Adobe doesn't paint my paintings either.

The entirety of D&D rules answer a completely meaningless question: can a character do [X] successfully. It automates a completely trivial process: I can just, y'know, decide. Or flip a coin. Nothing of matter will really change if I do.

 

[Clint_L]

Hmmm...I just played a game of D&D using Fiasco rules for all but one of the fights, meaning that we just decided what happened. It was fun. Very different sort of experience from doing the same using D&D rules, though. Instead of a strategic challenge, basically wargaming, it became a storytelling exercise.

I like an element of randomization in my RPGs, in general. The unpredictability often leads the story in unexpected directions. That does happen through shared storytelling games, too, but I find that only works really well with experienced players, a lot of buy-in, and not too many beverages.

 

[niklinna]

So, if I abandon Photoshop completely and turn to my second favorite medium: oil paint, would the canvas manufacturer, the paints manufacturer, the brush manufacturer, the lights manufacturer and the people who originally built the bloc I'm currently living in do the "vast majority of the work"? Oh, and let's not forget all the people involved in ludicrously complex logistics of delivering all this stuff to me.

No. It's asinine.

"Мастер-класс" doesn't paint my paintings. I do. Adobe doesn't paint my paintings either.

The entirety of D&D rules answer a completely meaningless question: can a character do [X] successfully. It automates a completely trivial process: I can just, y'know, decide. Or flip a coin. Nothing of matter will really change if I do.

Flipping a coin is just a d2 after all. As long as you have different possible outcomes, and that means at least two! But I find three much more interesting.

"Just deciding" needs a little elaboration, of course, since a GM could "just decide" that you fail all the time, or that you succeed all the time. Or that you fail all the time and Chris across the table (who is secretly dating the GM) succeeds all the time. That's one big reason we use the dice. But there's no technical reason we couldn't use pools of successes & failures that each player has to choose from in each moment (and a few games have taken this approach). This is putting the decision of success/failure back in the players' hands rather than the GM's (to get back to the topic). The GM would have their own such pool for NPCs (or possibly per NPC).

Swinging back around to "just deciding", some more or less neutral (or rationed) arbiter is good for the axis of how well or poorly things go, at whatever scale of action, but from there I am very much a fan of people working out the particulars of the fiction for in what ways things go well or poorly (or both). In my experience, as long as there's some shared authority at the table there, very little formalism is needed for that, although for groups that tend to bog down in back-and-forth "writers' room" type discussion that drags on, an egg time might be a good idea.