D&D General How much control do DMs need?

[Imaro]

No. Looking at RPGs like it's photoshop is a wrong perspective. RPGs aren't "game engines". They are games.

So then what about generic systems? GURPS, Cypher, BRP, and so on. Putting aside the fact that these games were rpg's before many of the indie games you and others are referencing... Now we've entered the weird realm of D&D isn't actually a rpg. Uhm... ok.

OK, rule of thumb: is it possible to play system [X] without breaking any rules and still have a bad time? If yes, then it's a badly designed game. The designer didn't do their job, didn't clearly demarcate the fun zone and didn't do anything to prevent the players from leaving it.

This rule of thumb makes no sense. I can have a bad time because what system X wants to do isn't to my tastes... because the specific GM doesn't vibe with me, because the players don't vibe with me and so on.

 

[niklinna]

....because D&D lacks design. If it had some, DMing wouldn't require a skill. It would require just following the rules exactly as they are written, because the designer already did all the thinking for you and forbade bad DMing.

Well, now, I would argue that following rules, even exactly as they are written, is a skill. Or even a set of skills. Just not as big a set as that for patching up an incomplete and contradictory design!

Edit: Fixed a typo.

 

[Maxperson]

No, that isn't what I'm wondering about.

I described Dungeon World. Not D&D. The DW descriptions I've given, when rooted in the rules text and abstract discussion thereof, get HUGE pushback. Especially the bit about actually having to follow the rules. But then when concrete description of DW is offered instead, it consistently elicits confusion, of the form, "How is this different from D&D?"

Yeah. There's a lot of bad blood on both sides at this point. A number of people push their preferences as a one true way or at least "the better way" quite often when discussing games. This applies to people on both the traditional style and player facing style sides. As a result, both try to pick apart the specific examples given to try and show that a side's preferences really aren't better or that different. And it tends to be the same few folks on both sides that consistently trash the other style when they post, causing a lot of defensiveness in return.

It's a shame, because during those few times when a real discussion about the merits and flaws of both styles of play happens without that kind of defensiveness, I tend to learn some things, some of which are useful for my game.

 

[Lanefan]

But not in the other individual members? This seems so odd to me.

Individual members come and go, sometimes retiring from adventuring for a while to do their own things (or just for some R&R) before returning, and sometimes just dying out.

Well, that's likely because of the way the game plays. D&D isn't strongly suited for split parties. But there are many other games that work just fine that way. I had a campaign where there were three players, and for three sessions in a row, they were all separated and off doing their own thing, and then finally got back together at the end of the third session.

It worked just fine for that game. With D&D, it would have been a struggle.

I had similar - a large party got completely split up. Email very quickly became My Friend.

So you can just not design all that over weeks or months. Again, that's your preference, but we're talking about what's necessary. You don't need to craft an entire world all at once before play begins. By "you" here, I mean the general you.

You don't need the entire world, but I think you do need a fairly big piece of it. Why? Because otherwise when talking about what else is out there it's far too easy to talk yourself into a corner (i.e. dreaming something up about the world that on later reflection really doesn't fit there), or into inconsistencies (i.e. contradicting something established earlier).

I'm an awful note-taker during the run of play, and I've no way of knowing what snippets the players (or I!) will remember later - maybe years later - and what they won't.

That sounds limiting. Why not change it up a bit from time to time?

Personal preference for my settings.

Why not? What is lost if you let the player of the dwarf... who likely has the strongest interest in what dwarves are like... decide things about dwarves?

For one thing, it's 99.99% certain that initial Dwarf won't be the only one played in the campaign; so why should the first player to play one get that authorial favouritism? Never mind that first Dwarf PC could well be dead within two sessions. For another, the next player to play a Dwarf might have vastly different ideas about what Dwarves are like, leading to conflict. Far better that a neutral arbiter - i.e. me as DM - set the parameters up front and have done with it.

Yeah, I think we see this all the time in discussions... it's a big part of the whole murder-hobo phenomenon. Solitary wanderers with no roots or connections to the world. A big part of this is the fact that as soon as there is some history or family included, DMs use it as a club to punish the player for it.

I want characters who exist in the world and who therefore are a part of it... with family and friends and enemies and so on. These things should be advantageous as often as disadvantageous... it should just be grist for the mill of play. If it's all negative, then players get conditioned to not want any of it.

To a point, I agree with this. I mean, I love playing murder-hoboes, but even they have roots and (living or dead) family somewhere. And I agree about the advantage and disadvantage being about equal; in my view this is best achieved by the player not abusing the situation (i.e. no "I'm the daughter of the Baron which means I'm rich and what I say goes") and the DM largely ignoring their existence unless the player brings it up.

No, they don't need to give you anything more than what they have. In the case of the pregens, it seems like those elements aren't going to immediately impact the scenario that's being offered for play. A quick summary of a far-off place is all that's needed. If some details come up... if a player decides to introduce a custom from his homeland to try and impress the locals... awesome, go for it! In this case the loose background detail inspires the player during play rather than limiting them during play.

If you've agreed to play a pre-gen you've already self-imposed all those limits, I'd say.

Depends on the campaign, though. If the whole campaign is no more than a hard-line AP where the characters are never intended to stray from the tracks then nothing external really matters; and while I know WotC love DMs who run their games this way because it sells more adventure books, it's not appealing to me and I'd argue isn't the best way to present the game.

 

[Lanefan]

Only your own. At which point, isn't it just better to design your own system, that is grown in a lab to bring forth your vision? The amount of effort is, at worst, comparable.

Having more or less done just this over the last 40-ish years, using 1e D&D as the starting point, I can confirm the amount of effort is vastly greater and not even close to comparable.

The very fact it's been 40 years and yet remains a work in progress attests to that.

The results will be better. What's the point?

Better in a subjective sense, yes; as anything one made oneself is generally viewed more positively by its maker.

Better in an objective neutral-stance sense is always an open question with answer varying by respondent.

 

[Lanefan]

No. Looking at RPGs like it's photoshop is a wrong perspective. RPGs aren't "game engines". They are games.

They're game engines, and that's a very key differentiator betweem they and other games.

A large part of what makes RPGs different from nearly all other types of games at the end-user level is that with nearly all other games the designers use a game engine (in turn designed by themselves or by someone else) to design the product that's ultimately sold to the end user.

With RPGs the designers design different game engines and sell us those to use or kitbash as we like.

OK, rule of thumb: is it possible to play system [X] without breaking any rules and still have a bad time? If yes, then it's a badly designed game.

Then every game ever made is bad, because it's possible to have a bad time playing any game you can name.

The designer didn't do their job, didn't clearly demarcate the fun zone and didn't do anything to prevent the players from leaving it.

I leave the "fun zone" of chess the moment I start losing badly (a common occurrence). Does this make chess a bad game? Hell no.

 

[HomegrownHydra]

....because D&D lacks design. If it had some, DMing wouldn't require a skill. It would require just following the rules exactly as they are written, because the designer already did all the thinking for you and forbade bad DMing.

How about you make a perfectly designed RPG that doesn’t need any skill to play, an RPG that guarantees that anyone who plays it has tons of fun. You will become a millionaire.

 

[S'mon]

They're game engines, and that's a very key differentiator betweem they and other games.

A large part of what makes RPGs different from nearly all other types of games at the end-user level is that with nearly all other games the designers use a game engine (in turn designed by themselves or by someone else) to design the product that's ultimately sold to the end user.

With RPGs the designers design different game engines and sell us those to use or kitbash as we like.

I just got Forbidden Lands RPG in the post. It actually seems to be intended as a complete game, not just a game engine. Which I find rather disconcerting - perhaps showing how unusual this is. Most RPGs don't look like games, they look like instruction manuals for making a game.

 

[hawkeyefan]

Ok so Agon prep...

Island Concept: A name & description : My assumption is used to create specific areas on the island as well as to generate consistent description throughout play.

Signs of the Gods: Select 2 or 3 gods who might have interest on the island and decide on their desires as well as what signs the would use to convey their desires. the leader of the heroes can interpret these signs as concrete actions to gain divine favor.

Design NPC's/monsters: Create 3-5 npc's and/or monsters that embody the overall concept of the island. They should want something concrete that conflicts with those who oppose them. A singular desire with 2-3 qualities. They serve as allies and opponents to the PC's

Create Strife & Trials: ( The core trouble that keeps the island in a state of woe) as well as 3-4 trials (conflicts) that address it's symptoms. This prep serves to create challenges for the PC's and lead to the climactic trial to end the Strife.

Create Mysteries: Highlight a few questions that the trials may raise for the characters that the Strife player (akin to the DM) can answer. These serve as things for the players to discover, thought the answer is a strong hypothesis for the Strife Player. Honestly I think Agon kind of drops the ball in explaining how these mysteries are resolved. on the one hand it suggests they are questions... but on the other hand no procedure for determining their answer is given, and it is implied that ultimately it is decided by the Strife player at some point during play.

Special Rewards: A unique and remarkable reward the heroes might gain from helping the people, defying the gods, overcoming challenges or uncovering mysteries. This serves as a reward, pretty self-explanatory.


So to tell you how I see commonalities in D&D prep... let's look at a basic 5 room dungeon....

Concept: The dungeon will have a general concept that serves the same purpose as that above. In latter editions of D&D the description of the individual rooms might be detailed but it could also be sparse to non-existent in the OSR style.

Signs of the Gods: This prep is unique to Agon play and unnecessary for D&D play due to it's theme... though it could be something interesting to add to D&D campaigns of a certain type. Interpret the signs of the gods and receive inspiration.

Design NPC's/monsters - In general the same purpose as D&D... allies and/or opposition. In the confined space of a 5 room dungeon you'd probably create a similar number though they'd be more detailed (stat blocks for monsters/but not necessarily for NPC's) due to different systems.

Strife and Trials: While Strife isn't something that would need to be prepped for D&D... many do in the form of the climactic battle. This ultimately serves the same purpose as combat, traps, skill challenges, hazards, etc. as D&D. Though usually at a much lower level of granularity than D&D.

Mysteries: Knowledge that the PC's don't have that must be discovered through play... both systems have this. Answer is determined by the DM/Strife player and neither are particularly specific about when the truth of these mysteries has to be determined.

Special Rewards: Exists in both systems... are determined by the DM/Strife player. Very little difference except D&D provides more examples and lists one can choose from.

I honestly don't see the prep for the two games as having this vast gulf of difference outside of their mechanics being different. I guess the island is more nebulous as far as its physicality but you're doing similar prep and just not assigning it a location in Agon... though to be fair there are methodologies in D&D where location is kept vague until actual play takes place like point crawl and random dungeons. I'd be interested to hear your take on it though.

A few things leap out at me here. I'll preface this by saying I've not yet run or played Agon, but I have read it, and I've seen it played. I backed the kickstarter and I do want to get it to my table at some point.

I would say that the biggest difference between Agon and D&D is that there is a clear structure to prep in Agon, and then the ideas within that structure are more about inspiring participants. With D&D, there structure is far less specific... many would say that there isn't one, though I don't know if I'd go quite that far... and then the ideas in that loose structure are far more specific.

Agon tells you exactly how to prep for play. And that prep is very simple and broad. Assuming you decide to make your own island instead of using one of those offered in the book, of course. It breaks it down into components (Signs of the Gods, Arrival, Trials, Characters, Places, Special Rewards, Mysteries) but the details for those components are not designed to limit players. They're also not hidden. The Strife Player reads the Signs of the Gods out loud at the start of the session, then they read the Arrival. They introduce characters and they share details such as "this person is clearly hiding something" and so on. Their job is to Reveal, and that's made very clear in the book.... Reveal, Ask, Judge is the basic loop of play.

To touch on Mysteries, I don't think it's that vague at all. They're meant to be answered in play. These are questions prompted by the characters and location... so they come about as a result of the mix of elements for a given island. It may be "why is the priest of Hera turning her back on the people?" or similar. The Strife Player is recommended to offer a partial answer, but to then let play determine the truth. The players can either confirm the hypothesis of the Strife Player, or reject it for their own. This is all stated on page 137. Then the example islands have some Mysteries, which you can see are just leading questions to determine in play.

Now, compare that to D&D. The structure of D&D is far less specific. The DM is meant to craft an adventure of some sort, which will have a Beginning, Middle, and End (this is from the DMG, Part 2, Master of Adventures). They offer some types of adventures (location-based, event-based, mysteries, framing events) and gives advice about some elements of each (party goals, villains, events, suspects, and so on). This is all very broad. So much is left to the GM to do... right down to the very basics of what the structure of play will be.

Then, the elements chosen need to be detailed. You need a map for locations, you need detailed stats for opponents or traps, you need to design encounters, and so on. There are a lot of tables you can use to determine these elements, but it's all scattershot and the guidance is super vague and wishy-washy. Mostly, prep consists of determining specifics ahead of time.

I think the two are fairly opposite in how they work.

 

[Imaro]

A few things leap out at me here. I'll preface this by saying I've not yet run or played Agon, but I have read it, and I've seen it played. I backed the kickstarter and I do want to get it to my table at some point.

I would say that the biggest difference between Agon and D&D is that there is a clear structure to prep in Agon, and then the ideas within that structure are more about inspiring participants. With D&D, there structure is far less specific... many would say that there isn't one, though I don't know if I'd go quite that far... and then the ideas in that loose structure are far more specific.

I think I agree with most everything above except... the structure of Agon being about "inspiring participants" and the implied... "D&D isn't"... However before I comment further I'd like you to define more specifically what you mean by this.

Agon tells you exactly how to prep for play. And that prep is very simple and broad. Assuming you decide to make your own island instead of using one of those offered in the book, of course. It breaks it down into components (Signs of the Gods, Arrival, Trials, Characters, Places, Special Rewards, Mysteries) but the details for those components are not designed to limit players. They're also not hidden. The Strife Player reads the Signs of the Gods out loud at the start of the session, then they read the Arrival. They introduce characters and they share details such as "this person is clearly hiding something" and so on. Their job is to Reveal, and that's made very clear in the book.... Reveal, Ask, Judge is the basic loop of play.

To touch on Mysteries, I don't think it's that vague at all. They're meant to be answered in play. These are questions prompted by the characters and location... so they come about as a result of the mix of elements for a given island. It may be "why is the priest of Hera turning her back on the people?" or similar. The Strife Player is recommended to offer a partial answer, but to then let play determine the truth. The players can either confirm the hypothesis of the Strife Player, or reject it for their own. This is all stated on page 137. Then the example islands have some Mysteries, which you can see are just leading questions to determine in play.

I'd say it's more restrained (very specific play structure), less specific (components are created at a higher level of granularity for the most part)... and not necessarily more simple (Tying it all together as a whole and making sure the interlocking components all tie to the strife And you follow the exact process... just seems more complex in a different way than a random D&D dungeon might be.

I disagree that Mysteries are not hidden. They are specifically things the players don't know the answers to at the beginning of play. Unless hidden means something besides not having knowledge of... I'm not sure how you come to that conclusion. Whether they are revealed or not during play is does not somehow make them not hidden until that time.

Can you show me where in the book it explains the process for how exactly a mystery is resolved...how the actual truth is decided? You're saying it's decided in play but what does that mean. If the mystery is whether the hermit has been poisoning the villages water supply and my partial answer as GM is he has poisonous herbs in his garden... how is whether he did or didn't actually determined in this game?

Now, compare that to D&D. The structure of D&D is far less specific. The DM is meant to craft an adventure of some sort, which will have a Beginning, Middle, and End (this is from the DMG, Part 2, Master of Adventures). They offer some types of adventures (location-based, event-based, mysteries, framing events) and gives advice about some elements of each (party goals, villains, events, suspects, and so on). This is all very broad. So much is left to the GM to do... right down to the very basics of what the structure of play will be.

Yes... so then structure/process. We've established this as a difference already but when the components of Agon's structure are taken individually they, t least IMO, very closely align with common components of D&D play.

Then, the elements chosen need to be detailed. You need a map for locations, you need detailed stats for opponents or traps, you need to design encounters, and so on. There are a lot of tables you can use to determine these elements, but it's all scattershot and the guidance is super vague and wishy-washy. Mostly, prep consists of determining specifics ahead of time.

Let's just say I disagree you need this level of granularity to run a D&D adventure...and as I stated earlier I have run D&D with a majority of improv.

All you need to run a 1st level adventure...
Resolution mechanic of D&D... attribute (+Skill) if applicable vs. DC of 5/10/15/20.
Base 1st level opponent stat block.
damage by level of traps.
That's all you actually need to run a simple adventure...

I think the two are fairly opposite in how they work.

I'd agree in how the books are structured, processes and procedures but when you get down to it you are prepping an "adventure" or an "island" with largely the same general components in both systems. Contrast this with something like the other game discussed earlier... In a Wicked Age and I totally agree there. There is no similar pre-prep between the two.

EDIT: And honestly it's AGON's similarities in prep to more trad games that has me wanting to try it. Outside of the vagueness I felt hung around resolving mysteries... it's a fairly easy game to grok.