D&D General How much control do DMs need?

[clearstream]

Ah, that is really triggering another insight. There are flexibilities on different timescales. My statement was with timescale of within a single session, while your argument is in the timescale from one game to the next.

PbtA games tend to be quite rigid with regard to how a spesific session look like, but it is easy to make large scale changes keeping the core concepts allowing for a very wide range of possibilities when changing around rules for a new game.

Rule 0 games (including D&D) tend to be very flexible in terms of the width of experiences that can be had within a single session. But I fully agree that D&D is very rigid in terms of making major changes to the existing game as such between campaigns.

I find this distinction fascinating, but I don't immediately see how malability of game rules from one game to the next tie into the main topic of this thread - DM control? For instance i am of the impression that gurps still is very malable (on the cross game scale) while granting the same controll to DMs as D&D (hence leading to similar in-session flexibility)

Regarding time management many games care about tempo, which in the wargaming sense is the number of actions in one series compared with another. Some games surrender concern for tempo to achieve other objectives, which can make the result more satisfying for some players and less satisfying for others. Depending on their interests.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

For what it's worth, the only map I use for D&D is a high level map I made years ago and a rough map the current campaign runs in. The prep I focus on is Interesting world building, deciding factions, individuals, events and obstacles that make sense that may or my not come up in this (or any) campaign. Most of that is done when I'm trying to get to sleep, it helps me take the focus off the day.

But the real question I'm meandering around to is, what does any of this have to do with D&D and the supposed thread topic? Is there any way to tie it back? If not, carry on and ignore this. This isn't just to you, but to everyone that keeps bringing in other games.

Because to me, it still all goes back to preferences and what we get out of the game. In D&D, as a DM I get to stretch some creative muscles. It lets me imagine the setting for a fantasy story. As a player of a PC I'm running one of the protagonists in that story. I like that those roles are completely different. But it also means that as a DM I don't really care all that much about the growth of the PC or their goals per se. I care about the enjoyment of the players and try to create an interesting world to run around it, hopefully I present plenty of opportunity for them to pursue their goals.

It seems like a lot of games are far more character focused, which is fine. It's not that I don't care about character goals and whatnot, but they are secondary. But just as important, most of my players don't seem to care. I have a hard enough time getting them involved with downtime activities or fleshing out a backstory. I encourage people to speak out if they want to pursue some personal goal for their PC in my session 0 and I don't remember the last time anyone did.

Which is just my rambling way of saying that different games serve different purposes. You aren't "doing it wrong" if you run a more collaborative game, at the same time you aren't "doing it wrong" if the DM maintains final authority of everything but the PC. The latter is what I prefer, same goes for the vast majority of people I play with.

I agree, D&D (in its various forms) serves a somewhat different purpose from Dungeon World. As for tying back to the topic of the thread, my feeling is that when I say "The role of the GM in Dungeon World is quite different from that in classic D&D" someone inevitably pushes back and starts trying to tell me they're not actually very different! I get told that the GM is still providing all the fiction, that the GM still has to prepare content, that at the most fundamental level all these games are pretty much the same and often that 'system doesn't matter'. I find that most of the arguments in favor of that view make fundamental assumptions about the relationships between the roles at the table, the characters and the fiction, etc. that are only valid for one subset of games, but get projected onto ALL games as if they are eternal truths. That all being said, I don't think that what most of us are doing (and I say 'most' because I certainly cannot speak for all) is completely different. I'm driving my horse buggy into town, and you're driving your Ford F150 into town, and we might actually have somewhat similar experiences, and even goals, overall. There will be some really big differences though in terms of Dungeon World vs 5e D&D as examples.

 

[hawkeyefan]

Really? No one is repeatedly stating exactly the same thing without caveat? Could have fooled me.

No, no one is doing that. I’ve said that players caring about characters other than their own is beneficial to a game.

You’ve somehow taken that and assumed that I was saying this is the GM’s job to enforce, rather than a goal to shoot for, and then when corrected, you play the “there’s no one true way” card.

I can't imagine how you would not have to switch back and forth in any game. The time spent on one individual or group subset may change, but that just depends on what scenario you're doing. Most of the time when I have a split party it's not combat. Occasionally one group is involved in combat another is not. Other times both are in different combats, in which case we just go by player turns and the gameplay itself is essentially the same. The game rules have nothing to do with how to balance that. Unless of course there's some secret sauce where group A can contribute while group B is undergoing a task, there will always be people in on the action and people observing.

Yes, of course you’ll have to go back and forth. As many others have pointed out, the rules can make that easier or harder.

For example…

D&D is a game designed so that some PCs complement others, so it can be a very bad idea to split the party. Doesn't mean it doesn't work, I've done it many times over the years.

No one has said it’s impossible, just that it’s more difficult than other games. You describe it here as potentially being “a very bad idea”, so it seems you agree.

If a fantasy book doesn't contain a map in it somewhere I see that as a fail. That said, the maps in many fantasy books are legitimately awful; sometimes in their presentation but more often in their attempts to depict things that at face value geologically couldn't exist, where such disparities are never explained in the text.

I mean, if there's an explained-in-story reason for those rivers to flow uphill, that's cool - but if there isn't, that's pretty poor world design/mapping.

I mean, I live in the real world next to a river that flows both ways, so I don’t know if that’s a concern.

Joe Abercrombie is noted for actively eschewing maps in his fantasy novels (with one exception). Nothing is lost for this.

My "entertaining" often involves taking something just a bit over the top, be it a personality aspect, a quirk, sheer gonzo-ness, or whatever. This - particularly the gonzo aspect - sometimes tends to see them die quickly.

Right, so what you like about character amounts to flavorful portrayal. I enjoy that too, but what tends to really engage me is when there’s some depth to the characters and they have struggles with actual stakes. Personal goals that I’m curious to see resolved, one way or the other.

My usual benchmark is this: a character is entertaining enough if - like a TV show - it makes the other players (and-or the DM) want to come back next week for more.

Yes. Like you care what happens to them, even if it’s only as entertainment.

No. I'd agree that a person is likely very interested in the actions of his enemy, but not that he cares. Caring implies sympathy, empathy, maybe even love; things which one doesn't often have for an enemy.

At risk of furthering this semantic quibble…
I’m using care as a verb that means “to express interest in or concern for”.

 

[Oofta]

I'm not disputing that different games focus on different things, I'm disputing the idea that 5e is somehow so flexible that it doesn't.

How does 5e deal with nonviolent nonmagical investigation games? How does it deal with courtly intrigue (other than ten million Persuasion checks with no defined stakes)? How does it do gritty reality when once you get past level two or three characters can survive multiple sword blows without difficulty? How does it do deep cultural exploration games, group worldbuilding games, or moral dilemma games?

Moreover, how is it more suited to switching between light hearted heroic romps and gritty reality, as you seem to imply, than any other game? How does it deal with tragedy, slapstick, high melodrama, etc better than any other game?

I play and like D&D, by the way. Even 5e, although it's not my favourite. But I like it for what it does best, not some imagined superflexibility that has no basis in the text.

That changes the goalposts though. I don't disagree that D&D is, well, it's own thing now. Just that it's more flexible out of the box than many. It's going to be less flexible than others as well.

I've also never said it does other things better than more focused games. If I want silly slapstick all the time I'd probably look into playing a Toons game. CoC presumably does eldritch horror better. I think I can probably more readily do slapstick in D&D than in CoC and eldritch horror in D&D than in a Toons game.

 

[Oofta]

I agree, D&D (in its various forms) serves a somewhat different purpose from Dungeon World. As for tying back to the topic of the thread, my feeling is that when I say "The role of the GM in Dungeon World is quite different from that in classic D&D" someone inevitably pushes back and starts trying to tell me they're not actually very different! I get told that the GM is still providing all the fiction, that the GM still has to prepare content, that at the most fundamental level all these games are pretty much the same and often that 'system doesn't matter'. I find that most of the arguments in favor of that view make fundamental assumptions about the relationships between the roles at the table, the characters and the fiction, etc. that are only valid for one subset of games, but get projected onto ALL games as if they are eternal truths. That all being said, I don't think that what most of us are doing (and I say 'most' because I certainly cannot speak for all) is completely different. I'm driving my horse buggy into town, and you're driving your Ford F150 into town, and we might actually have somewhat similar experiences, and even goals, overall. There will be some really big differences though in terms of Dungeon World vs 5e D&D as examples.

Some of the pushback may just be miscommunication because forums like this often lead to the understanding being different from what was intended in a way that doesn't happen as often when talking in person. Some of it may be people asking for clarification or just plain misunderstanding. I think all RPGs share some core principles or they wouldn't be RPGs. But if I ask "How is that different..." or "Isn't that the same as..." is me trying to get clarification, not saying they aren't fundamentally different in some ways.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

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

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.

Again, there's a significant degree to which I agree/sympathize with your point of view. OTOH RPGs are not nearly as simple as, let us say, eurogames. They are not even close to as simple as CRPGs, even though the two game genre share some traits. RIFTS (Kevin's games in general) are, from a pure rules perspective, train wrecks to put it bluntly. This is still a great game in terms of being a fun thing to play with! I mean, its not exactly my cup of tea amongst RPGs, but I've seen a LOT of people having quite a bit of fun with it. I've had quite a bit of fun with other games who's mechanical construction I heavily question too, like Gamma World 1e. AD&D even falls to a degree into this category, with 1e's rules being famously pretty much unplayable as written, though the INTENT is pretty coherent. I think that's key here, these games generally have pretty coherent visions of what they're trying to do, its just hard to get right, and there's so little money in the whole industry (especially in earlier decades) that game designers simply got their ideas out there in SOME form and hoped for the best. I don't think its fair to call those efforts 'terrible' or even 'badly designed'. Heck, in many cases I think the term 'designed' may be a bit heavy weight compared to what actually happened!! I mean, my friends and I hacked together a couple of rule sets for our RPG play for specific things, its more just doing whatever works. Some of that kind of stuff (not ours) got published. Good/bad, I find it hard to apply those terms.

 

[Enrahim2]

How does 5e deal with nonviolent nonmagical investigation games? How does it deal with courtly intrigue (other than ten million Persuasion checks with no defined stakes)? How does it do gritty reality when once you get past level two or three characters can survive multiple sword blows without difficulty? How does it do deep cultural exploration games, group worldbuilding games, or moral dilemma games?

The way D&D 5ed best do grity reality is to provide 1st level play at the level it does, rather than start out at current 3rd level power (like some advokate would be better). If you want to keep it gritty, just never level. the rules actually never tell any situation that has to trigger xp or milestones, there are only guidelines to that effect.

I think the answer to all the others of these are D&D saying: "I don't have any particular opinion on this, so I'll just get out of the way and let the DM run this the way he seem fit. My designer presumed they might be more qualified than him at figuring what would be a good way to do it, given their knowledge of the group etc. Feel free to use some of the dice rolling mechanisms, spells and other tools I provide while you are at it. And by the way remember, if your DM actually start threatening the life of your characters, I might come in with some more strong opinions again. After all it is nice to have an outside party arbit issues as important as life or death, and my designer happens to be very well educated in how combat games can work".

Or in short: D&D is considered so flexible because it is quite good at getting out of the way when it's services and expertise is not needed.

 

[soviet]

That changes the goalposts though. I don't disagree that D&D is, well, it's own thing now. Just that it's more flexible out of the box than many. It's going to be less flexible than others as well.

I've also never said it does other things better than more focused games. If I want silly slapstick all the time I'd probably look into playing a Toons game. CoC presumably does eldritch horror better. I think I can probably more readily do slapstick in D&D than in CoC and eldritch horror in D&D than in a Toons game.

I don't disagree, although CoC and Toon are two extremes of tone. D&D doesn't really have any mechanical support for slapstick, other than maybe a few spells here and there, and not does it have a huge amount of mechanical support for eldritch horror games outside of spells, monsters, and fear saves.

Moreover, I'm not sure how D&D is any better suited to these things than a million other middle of the road RPGs, from WFRP and Runequest to FATE or Mouse Guard.

Rolemaster must be the uber RPG here for mixing horror and slapstick - just check out those crit tables!

 

[soviet]

The way D&D 5ed best do grity reality is to provide 1st level play at the level it does, rather than start out at current 3rd level power (like some advokate would be better). If you want to keep it gritty, just never level. the rules actually never tell any situation that has to trigger xp or milestones, there are only guidelines to that effect.

I think the answer to all the others of these are D&D saying: "I don't have any particular opinion on this, so I'll just get out of the way and let the DM run this the way he seem fit. My designer presumed they might be more qualified than him at figuring what would be a good way to do it, given their knowledge of the group etc. Feel free to use some of the dice rolling mechanisms, spells and other tools I provide while you are at it. And by the way remember, if your DM actually start threatening the life of your characters, I might come in with some more strong opinions again. After all it is nice to have an outside party arbit issues as important as life or death, and my designer happens to be very well educated in how combat games can work".

Or in short: D&D is considered so flexible because it is quite good at getting out of the way when it's services and expertise is not needed.

I see what you're saying.

I would feel much happier about 5e's supposed flexibility if it was set up better in the text. 'D&D doesn't get in the way' is not really the same as actively supporting a different genre or playstyle, and it's not something that is in any way unique to D&D. If you ignore a bunch of rules and then resolve a bunch of situations without any rules at all (or through bare bones rules like simple stat checks) then every RPG can achieve every playstyle and genre.

 

[Oofta]

I don't disagree, although CoC and Toon are two extremes of tone. D&D doesn't really have any mechanical support for slapstick, other than maybe a few spells here and there, and not does it have a huge amount of mechanical support for eldritch horror games outside of spells, monsters, and fear saves.

Moreover, I'm not sure how D&D is any better suited to these things than a million other middle of the road RPGs, from WFRP and Runequest to FATE or Mouse Guard.

Rolemaster must be the uber RPG here for mixing horror and slapstick - just check out those crit tables!

I never said D&D is better at anything other than D&D. Some might even say D&D is the Cheesecake Factory of RPGs, even if others are the Applebees.