D&D General How much control do DMs need?

[niklinna]

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.

Or way too many beverages.

(Said the teetotaller.)

 

[hawkeyefan]

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.

What about "the party" as a concept? Is that inherent in the game, or is that a decision, too?

The division between "in the field" and "arc of a specific character"... treating those as two separate things, with the idea that character arcs can only happen in between adventures, or being in the field, seems significant.

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 mean, if there's room, sure. But if they had to make a choice, then they should focus on smaller areas. If people get that right, then they can create a few such areas and then connect them.

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.

And I've done it and had no issues.

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.

A few days? Washington state? No need for all that.

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.

Nah, I don't really correlate the size of the world or the length of the campaign with the quality of play. As I've said, I've played in games that all took place in a single city that were much better than hugely expansive campaigns. Those things... the size or scope of the setting and the length of the campaign... they're just elements of a game, not goals in and of themselves.

 

[niklinna]

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.

But seriously, when you say "we decided", what does that mean specifically? The group as a whole worked out the result of each action? One particular person (the person to your left, for example) got to decide? One person suggested an outcome and if somebody said, "Cool!" that clinched it? We demand details!

 

[Maxperson]

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.

How much work is it to make those paints from scratch, including making all the dyes and oils from scratch. Then you have to make the canvas. You'd have to harvest the seeds, grow the plants, cure them however that's done and make the canvas. Then you have to make the brush, including making all the carving tools to make the brush.

So yes, ultimately without all that work that others have done for you, you aren't painting anything. You may create the finished product, but a lot of work from others went into your product.

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

Nope, but Adobe does most of the work of photoshopping your things.

 

[Lanefan]

What about "the party" as a concept? Is that inherent in the game, or is that a decision, too?

I'd say party-as-concept is inherent in the game, and always has been.

The division between "in the field" and "arc of a specific character"... treating those as two separate things, with the idea that character arcs can only happen in between adventures, or being in the field, seems significant.

Well, it;'s either that or only one player gets to play what they want (i.e. their own character's arc) while the rest just tag along for the ride. Hardly satisfactory for the rest, even if the focus switches between characters now and then.

A few days? Washington state? No need for all that.

If the players roll up a couple of Humans, a Dwarf, an Elf and a Hobbit for their starting characters I need to be able to pull out a map and show each player where - or at least what region or realm - their character is most likely from, based on its species and culture. Otherwise, I simply haven't done my job.

 

[HomegrownHydra]

...no? If I decide to switch from Photoshop to Procreate, I'll have to learn a whole new app, it's UI, shortcuts, quirks, tricks and weird bugs. Photoshop is still not doing "the vast majority of the work" for me.

The only difference is that Photoshop is a very complex piece of software that required miracles of engineering to be built.

What are you using Photoshop for such that you are doing the vast majority of the work?

 

[hawkeyefan]

I'd say party-as-concept is inherent in the game, and always has been.

So then it would seem to be a combo of your decision and the way the game works, I’d think.

Well, it;'s either that or only one player gets to play what they want (i.e. their own character's arc) while the rest just tag along for the ride. Hardly satisfactory for the rest, even if the focus switches between characters now and then.

I mean it all depends on what it is the characters are after. There’s no reason that the time in the field can’t be related to a character’s goals. And no reason that can’t rotate with each mission/adventure.

The alternative seems to not allow any characters to significantly shape play, which seems limiting.

Also, are your players not fans of each others’ characters? I’d expect interest in the game beyond one’s own character. Otherwise, the character-neutral trips into the field would seem just as undesirable.

There’d also ideally be nothing that would prevent you from splitting the group up and handling them all separately. But this is another area where D&D doesn’t really shine, and so the way the game works influences the way it’s played.

If the players roll up a couple of Humans, a Dwarf, an Elf and a Hobbit for their starting characters I need to be able to pull out a map and show each player where - or at least what region or realm - their character is most likely from, based on its species and culture. Otherwise, I simply haven't done my job.

Alternatively, you can wait and see what the players want to play, and then determine what’s needed. If you wind up with two humans, a tiefling, and a dwarf, then you won’t have to do as much. Also, maybe there’s not a separate kingdom for each? Maybe the races are far more intermingled than a Tolkienesque setting? Or maybe things are even more different than that?

You can also solicit ideas from the players at this point. Maybe the player of the dwarf character has an idea about what dwarves are like in this world. Maybe he has ideas that immediately inspire some NPCs and possible conflicts.

Again… we’re talking about how much control is needed. The DM can loosen his grip in many ways, I’d say.

 

[Imaro]

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.

What exactly "of matter" should the rules of a ttrpg be changing?

 

[Clint_L]

If the players roll up a couple of Humans, a Dwarf, an Elf and a Hobbit for their starting characters I need to be able to pull out a map and show each player where - or at least what region or realm - their character is most likely from, based on its species and culture. Otherwise, I simply haven't done my job.

Not arguing with you, but I think this reinforces loverdrive's thesis about D&D.

 

[Oofta]

Not arguing with you, but I think this reinforces loverdrive's thesis about D&D.

They have a thesis? Which would be ... what exactly? If you don't want to build lore, base your campaign on any one of the half dozen campaign worlds out there. Personally? I like making my own lore, it's part of the enjoyment of my game. I like my Lego set. If someone wants the Ikea furniture, that's there too.