D&D General How much control do DMs need?

[hawkeyefan]

So if I'm playing one of my characters (A) I'll very much care about another player's character (B) who (A) is in love with, but if I'm playing a different character (C) I might not give a flying fig about what becomes of (B) and want to kill that same player's other character (D).

But I mean you as a player, not through the lens of your character. The way you may care about characters in a book or movie, even when they may be at odds.

In theory. In practice we have game logs that largely take care of such things.

Then why worry about contradictions if you have game logs that prevent them?

For example, the player of Dwarf #1 might place a Dwarven realm in the Althasian Hills as his home. Fine...until a few years later another player running Dwarf #6 places another Dwarven realm in the Thraci Hills...meaning that Dwarves #2-5 could have been from there as well if that choice had existed at the time. Never mind that the sudden emergence of a Dwarven realm in the Thraci Hills might cause all sorts of retroactive knock-on effects elsewhere ("Crap - we were getting slaughtered near there in that Flame of Chaos adventure, we could have gone there for refuge had we known it existed!" <stink eyes all round> )

See, you’re doing exactly what I said. You’ve already created an area and then you’re trying to add something new to the area that seems incongruous. If you had not already detailed the Thraci hills, then no contradiction. If you had, then why add anything contradictory?

Not committing to everything all at once up front doesn’t mean anyone can just add anything willy-nilly.

By sheer chance and against long odds (as such things are and always have been randomly rolled for in our systems) the very first character I ever played was a high noble - a prince first in line to a throne. Not that it gave him any advantages in play -

Then why worry about a character being noble or having money? I mean you invent concerns about the game and then explain how they weren’t actually concerns when you played. It’s bonkers.

How does that not immediately put the Strife player in violation of Czege, though? The Strife player is told to ask the question/pose the problem and then to help answer/solve it.

Or is the above intended as advice for what the GM is supposed to do? In which case, the "supporting your hypothesis" clause kind of indicates the GM does have an idea in mind as to the answer before point the Strife player to the questions.

The Strife Player is the GM in Agon. So the situation on the island is decided by the Strife Player. The resolution of it is unknown to all, until it is resolved through play.

No violation of the Czege principle.

 

[hawkeyefan]

Isn't that what everyone who supports D&D side of thing have said? That the way they run their game is based on preference and what works for them and their group?

Well many seem to take for granted that this is the way it must be done. The thread’s about how much control a DM needs, not how much they prefer.

I'm with @Lanefan on this one. I want consistency in the world, there's a history and relationships between the different groups. Group A doesn't trust group B because of what someone from group B did 200 years ago is common in history. It's going to be even more common when some of the members of that society may still be around.

I don’t think anything I’ve suggested would prevent that.

He didn't ask about the relationships between PCs ... just the way the PCs relate to each other? Either I'm missing the point or those are the same things.

I was asking about the players… entirely separate of their own characters.

When I play, I’m generally interested in the other players’ characters.

 

[soviet]

He didn't ask about the relationships between PCs ... just the way the PCs relate to each other? Either I'm missing the point or those are the same things.

Not sure how it could be clearer. 'Player' and 'player character' are not synonyms.

 

[pemerton]

He didn't ask about the relationships between PCs ... just the way the PCs relate to each other? Either I'm missing the point or those are the same things.

No. He asked about the attitude of the players to one another's PCs.

That is not an imaginary thing in a shared fiction. It's an actual thing in the real world.

I even gave an example: in the fiction, Aedhros regards Alicia with near-contempt. In the real world, I pemerton the player of Aedhros am heavily invested in Alicia, my friend's PC.

 

[Oofta]

Well many seem to take for granted that this is the way it must be done. The thread’s about how much control a DM needs, not how much they prefer.

I haven't seen anyone say D&D must have a DM with total control. On the other hand, I've seen plenty of people that are incredibly dismissive of anything but cooperative games.

I don’t think anything I’ve suggested would prevent that.



I was asking about the players… entirely separate of their own characters.

When I play, I’m generally interested in the other players’ characters.

I can control what the player think or feel even less than the PCs. If there's antagonism in the group I'd probably step in, but that's more of a social group thing than anything to do with the game. I guess I just don't see what you're trying to get at. I don't care what people think, all I care is that they're civil and I ask that they are willing to be part of a team.

 

[Lanefan]

No. He asked about the attitude of the players to one another's PCs.

That is not an imaginary thing in a shared fiction. It's an actual thing in the real world.

And that attitude is, in my case, going to be determined while thinking as the character I'm playing at the time.

If I'm not playing a character, e.g. I'm a spectator or we're taking about the game sometime during the week, then my attitude toward any given character is going to be greatly determined by that character's entertainment value.

 

[Lanefan]

Then why worry about contradictions if you have game logs that prevent them?

Reverse sequencing: I do the game logs in order to (help) prevent contradictions.

See, you’re doing exactly what I said. You’ve already created an area and then you’re trying to add something new to the area that seems incongruous. If you had not already detailed the Thraci hills, then no contradiction. If you had, then why add anything contradictory?

As noted in my tossed-together example, the PCs had already adventured close to those hills. A player (or me as GM) post-hoc putting a Dwarven realm there retroactively changes the parameters of that adventuring. Thus, as GM I wouldn't do this but in your scenario am I allowed to stop a player from doing this?

Then why worry about a character being noble or having money? I mean you invent concerns about the game and then explain how they weren’t actually concerns when you played. It’s bonkers.

Not so bonkers. If something unbalanced arises out of sheer random chance I'm fine with it. What I don't want it that it be player-selectable.

The Strife Player is the GM in Agon. So the situation on the island is decided by the Strife Player. The resolution of it is unknown to all, until it is resolved through play.

Ah, gotcha. Didn't catch this from those snippets.

No violation of the Czege principle.

Agreed.

 

[Oofta]

And that attitude is, in my case, going to be determined while thinking as the character I'm playing at the time.

If I'm not playing a character, e.g. I'm a spectator or we're taking about the game sometime during the week, then my attitude toward any given character is going to be greatly determined by that character's entertainment value.

This is what doesn't make sense to me. I can be friends with a fellow player, respect them. But they can be running a PC I don't care for. As long as they aren't being completely disruptive and destroying the enjoyment of the game for the other players, why do I care? As a GM what could I do about it and why would I care?

There are certain social contracts we abide by when we get together to play games. Whether that game is D&D or Pandemic, we treat each other with respect. Beyond that? I can't even imagine. Which is why I keep thinking I'm missing something.

 

[pemerton]

I guess I just don't see what you're trying to get at. I don't care what people think, all I care is that they're civil and I ask that they are willing to be part of a team.

An important part of my day job is writing. I often write with others - more than half of my publications are co-written.

Writing with others requires more than civility and being willing to be part of a team. It requires valuing their contribution - or, if you don't think it's valuable, being ready to engage with them as to why not and talking to them about how the two of you might get onto the same page,

As a hobby, I have occasionally played music with others. Being creative together involves valuing what the other person is bringing. There's reciprocity, and mutual engagement, and (hopefully) mutual pleasure.

@hawkeyefan is making the same point about RPGing. He wants each participant in the game to care about, and to be engaged with, the creative efforts of the others. Given that the creative efforts of someone in the "player" role in a RPG are mostly about the play of a character, @hawkeyefan has particularly emphasised caring about others' PCs. In much the same way, as he said, that you might be emotionally invested in a character in a film or book (even if that character is the villain - eg we care when Darth Vader throws the Emperor down the pit in a way that we typically don't care when Stormtrooper number [insert serial number here] is shot with a blaster).

This is what doesn't make sense to me. I can be friends with a fellow player, respect them. But they can be running a PC I don't care for. As long as they aren't being completely disruptive and destroying the enjoyment of the game for the other players, why do I care? As a GM what could I do about it and why would I care?

OK. So, suppose that someone did care - that they saw the contribution of RPG participants, and engagement with one another's creative efforts, in the same way that band members might. Now, with that in mind, think about how that might change the way they imagine RPGing, and the role of the GM, and of GM prep, and what sort of GM control they might want.

Perhaps to you that is bizarro land. But it is the land that some of your interlocutors are posting from.

 

[hawkeyefan]

I haven't seen anyone say D&D must have a DM with total control. On the other hand, I've seen plenty of people that are incredibly dismissive of anything but cooperative games.

So what level of control do you think is needed by a DM?

I can control what the player think or feel even less than the PCs. If there's antagonism in the group I'd probably step in, but that's more of a social group thing than anything to do with the game. I guess I just don't see what you're trying to get at. I don't care what people think, all I care is that they're civil and I ask that they are willing to be part of a team.

This part of the conversation wasn’t about the DM controlling players feelings. It was about @Lanefan saying that focus on individual characters isn’t preferred because his players are concerned only about the group.

I find that odd because I get invested in most of the characters in most of the games I play, not just my own characters.