D&D General How much control do DMs need?

[pemerton]

@clearstream

The proposition that a particular RPG system is more or less flexible than another, or than is typical, doesn't strike me as one that needs analysis and testing at a scientific level of scrutiny in order to assign some rough credence to it, particularly when the meaning of the proposition can be ascertained to a significant extent by the examples put forward by those who advance the proposition.

It may be that the flexibility is confined to some dimension of comparison - but then it seems to me the onus is on those who are making strong claims about distinctive or notable flexibility to specify that dimension. If some of those dimensions are incommensurable, well so much the worse for the flexibility comparisons.

Of RPGs that I know, one that I would say is not particularly flexible in play, in the sense that it relies heavily on rather prescriptive procedures that are not easy to change or adapt in real time (either player or GM side) is Rolemaster.

Burning Wheel is, in comparison, more flexible in play in that it can basically do everything that RM does (somewhat less colourful injury, but it still gives plenty of detail) but permits much more latitude in zooming in or out at the scene and resolution level.

Things that I note about most versions of D&D that make me dispute its relative flexibility: being designed for party play, it struggles with non-party play; relying heavily on rather granular resolution (both space and time), it can struggle with non-party play, with deliberate scene-framing (4e famously made some changes to handle this), etc; from the point of view of pacing and "story", it has no canonical system for dialling consequences up or down based on narrative weight or context, nor for zooming in our out based on narrative weight or context.

These are features of a system that are highly salient in RPGing, given their importance to the setting-character-situation relationship. There are plenty of RPGs that easily handle these issues. The fact that D&D doesn't easily handle them is a mark against its relative flexibility.

If someone thinks those features aren't relevant; or what they mean by D&D's flexibility is that - as an empirical conjecture - many D&D players will cheerfully accept mechanically unregulated stipulations by the GM about how things happen in the fiction, and/or will cheerfully accept suggestions for new mechanical procedures that are proposed by the GM; fair enough I guess. But that doesn't seem a very interesting claim, then, about comparisons between RPG systems - as opposed to, say, about what sorts of preferences of various RPGs tend to have.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

I can do it leaning on the same hand-wavium.

Intelligence (Arcana)
Design a spell using the common template. DM will tell you if your character can learn it, and if so set a DC for doing so.


I took about 30 seconds on that.

It's not "handwavium." I gave you an example of how DW uses this sort of thing. This is how it is designed--and it is actual design, not just declaring something happens to exist.

I honestly don't feel you are discussing in good faith here. This is both dismissive and reductive--frustratingly so.

 

[pemerton]

It's not "handwavium." I gave you an example of how DW uses this sort of thing. This is how it is designed--and it is actual design, not just declaring something happens to exist.

I honestly don't feel you are discussing in good faith here. This is both dismissive and reductive--frustratingly so.

I think @clearstream is querying where the spell specifications themselves are going to come from.

 

[Bedrockgames]

@clearstream

The proposition that a particular RPG system is more or less flexible than another, or than is typical, doesn't strike me as one that needs analysis and testing at a scientific level of scrutiny in order to assign some rough credence to it, particularly when the meaning of the proposition can be ascertained to a significant extent by the examples put forward by those who advance the proposition.

It may be that the flexibility is confined to some dimension of comparison - but then it seems to me the onus is on those who are making strong claims about distinctive or notable flexibility to specify that dimension. If some of those dimensions are incommensurable, well so much the worse for the flexibility comparisons.

Of RPGs that I know, one that I would say is not particularly flexible in play, in the sense that it relies heavily on rather prescriptive procedures that are not easy to change or adapt in real time (either player or GM side) is Rolemaster.

Burning Wheel is, in comparison, more flexible in play in that it can basically do everything that RM does (somewhat less colourful injury, but it still gives plenty of detail) but permits much more latitude in zooming in or out at the scene and resolution level.

Things that I note about most versions of D&D that make me dispute its relative flexibility: being designed for party play, it struggles with non-party play; relying heavily on rather granular resolution (both space and time), it can struggle with non-party play, with deliberate scene-framing (4e famously made some changes to handle this), etc; it as no canonical system for dialling consequences up or down based on narrative weight or context; it has no canonical system for zooming in our out based on narrative weight or context.

These are features of a system that are highly salient in RPGing, given their importance to the setting-character-situation relationship. There are plenty of RPGs that easily handle these issues. The fact that D&D doesn't easily handle them is a mark against its relative flexibility.

If someone thinks those features aren't relevant; or what they mean by D&D's flexibility is that - as an empirical conjecture - many D&D players will cheerfully accept mechanically unregulated stipulations by the GM about how things happen in the fiction, and/or will cheerfully accept suggestions for new mechanical procedures that are proposed by the GM; fair enough I guess. But that doesn't seem a very interesting claim, then, about comparisons between RPG systems - as opposed to, say, about what sorts of preferences of various RPGs tend to have.

I think there are two very different approaches to flexibility though. There is a strictly mechanical approach where you make a thorough system (not necessarily a complex one but one capable of handling a wide variety of situations) and that can deinfitely work. But there is also simply a rulings over rules approach, which to me is what always made RPGs special and what made it feel like anything was possible to attempt. I don't think one approach is better than the other, and I do think in a rulings over rules situation, rules still matter (I definitely find that easier to do if the system is simple with plenty of general tools to draw on). But they can both work in my view. I think if the question is, is the system itself flexible well that is different. If you want a system that is designed to be flexible all around then D&D is probably not the best choice. But if you want a game where in theory the players are supposed to say whatever it is they are trying to do and a GM is supposed to try to accommodate that mechanically to fit the situation, many versions of D&D would work (I don't think 3E would, that is a system where there is a rule covering just about anything---at least for D&D).

 

[pemerton]

But there is also simply a rulings over rules approach, which to me is what always made RPGs special and what made it feel like anything was possible to attempt.

The thing is, it's not clear to me what RPG doesn't exemplify this approach. What RPG disputes that anything is possible to attempt?

But reference to "rulings over rules" often reminds me of a story I read from Luke Crane (on some now-deleted forum I think) about his foray into Moldvay Basic. The player of a fighter declared that their PC hid from some Hobgoblins (or a spider - some monster, anyway); and Luke resolved that as a "roll under DEX" check.

It was only later that he realised that he'd given the fighter a better chance of hiding than the thief class's Hide in Shadows chance.

Generalising from that example, the issue with "rulings over rules" is when it collides with other elements of the resolution system, especially those that players have paid for with build resources. This is an area why I personally find D&D can be quite tricky, because there are so many somewhat arbitrary build elements (like Hide in Shadows as a thief class ability; or in 5e D&D the cleric's divine intervention ability as an obvious example).

On the other hand, this is not an issue that I've had in Cthulhu Dark, because it relies on very simple descriptor-based rules for putting together a dice pool.

That's not to say that Cthulhu Dark is better than (or worse than) D&D. But it certainly does "rulings not rules" pretty well!

 

[Oofta]

So do Backgrounds matter at all in your game? Or do they just consist of a pair of skills and a tool proficiency?

They can matter. I have no problem with minor benefits, such as someone with the soldier background getting special treatment by the guard or occasionally getting a free beer and advantage on some social checks in some cases. I want players to use their backgrounds to fill out their character and act as a tool to aid in overcoming obstacles. Some of it's just downtime and RP like the PC in my current group that had the crafter background and now owns their own smithy.

As with all things the players bring in though, it's a matter of scale. Their current deeds and actions, especially after the first couple of levels, should have more impact most of the time than their background.

 

[Bedrockgames]

The thing is, it's not clear to me what RPG doesn't exemplify this approach. What RPG disputes that anything is possible to attempt?

But reference to "rulings over rules" often reminds me of a story I read from Luke Crane (on some now-deleted forum I think) about his foray into Moldvay Basic. The player of a fighter declared that their PC hid from some Hobgoblins (or a spider - some monster, anyway); and Luke resolved that as a "roll under DEX" check.

It was only later that he realised that he'd given the fighter a better chance of hiding than the thief class's Hide in Shadows chance.

Generalising from that example, the issue with "rulings over rules" is when it collides with other elements of the resolution system, especially those that players have paid for with build resources. This is an area why I personally find D&D can be quite tricky, because there are so many somewhat arbitrary build elements (like Hide in Shadows as a thief class ability; or in 5e D&D the cleric's divine intervention ability as an obvious example).

On the other hand, this is not an issue that I've had in Cthulhu Dark, because it relies on very simple descriptor-based rules for putting together a dice pool.

That's not to say that Cthulhu Dark is better than (or worse than) D&D. But it certainly does "rulings not rules" pretty well!

I agree D&D tries to kind of do both. Another system I think more designed around rulings is cubicle 7s doctor who. And there is a very stripped down D&D that works well for rulings (stuff like skills, feats, etc I think make harder).

I do think some games are more about rulings than others. You can make a ruling in any system but games do have a spirit and if the rules cover everything as much as possible people are more likely to read it as a RAW rather than ruling game (this was very much my experience with 3E for example).

 

[clearstream]

@clearstream

The proposition that a particular RPG system is more or less flexible than another, or than is typical, doesn't strike me as one that needs analysis and testing at a scientific level of scrutiny in order to assign some rough credence to it, particularly when the meaning of the proposition can be ascertained to a significant extent by the examples put forward by those who advance the proposition.

It may be that the flexibility is confined to some dimension of comparison - but then it seems to me the onus is on those who are making strong claims about distinctive or notable flexibility to specify that dimension. If some of those dimensions are incommensurable, well so much the worse for the flexibility comparisons.

Of RPGs that I know, one that I would say is not particularly flexible in play, in the sense that it relies heavily on rather prescriptive procedures that are not easy to change or adapt in real time (either player or GM side) is Rolemaster.

Burning Wheel is, in comparison, more flexible in play in that it can basically do everything that RM does (somewhat less colourful injury, but it still gives plenty of detail) but permits much more latitude in zooming in or out at the scene and resolution level.

Things that I note about most versions of D&D that make me dispute its relative flexibility: being designed for party play, it struggles with non-party play; relying heavily on rather granular resolution (both space and time), it can struggle with non-party play, with deliberate scene-framing (4e famously made some changes to handle this), etc; from the point of view of pacing and "story", it has no canonical system for dialling consequences up or down based on narrative weight or context, nor for zooming in our out based on narrative weight or context.

These are features of a system that are highly salient in RPGing, given their importance to the setting-character-situation relationship. There are plenty of RPGs that easily handle these issues. The fact that D&D doesn't easily handle them is a mark against its relative flexibility.

If someone thinks those features aren't relevant; or what they mean by D&D's flexibility is that - as an empirical conjecture - many D&D players will cheerfully accept mechanically unregulated stipulations by the GM about how things happen in the fiction, and/or will cheerfully accept suggestions for new mechanical procedures that are proposed by the GM; fair enough I guess. But that doesn't seem a very interesting claim, then, about comparisons between RPG systems - as opposed to, say, about what sorts of preferences of various RPGs tend to have.

I'm concerned that the debate about flexibility doesn't really get at anything important, and that there may be in some poster's minds a conflation of flexible with good. So that noted, thinking about what I mean by flexibility. I hope I made it clear up thread that I see PbtA as more flexible than D&D. To add to that, however, flexibility is not a quality that is necessarily valuable. Sometimes, the least flexible toolset is the best one. Particularly when you have narrow ends in mind.

To give a (probably horrible) analogy, let's compare two carpenter's toolboxes.

Box A contains a jigsaw, a hammer, a crescent wrench, a grout removal tool, a plane and a 1" chisel. Six tools.
Box B contains a single phillips screwdriver. One tool.

On this occasion, I need to attach one piece of wood to another using philips-head woodscrews. Box B is right for my purpose. Box A contains nothing that will do this job as effectively.

 

[Oofta]

I'm concerned that the debate about flexibility doesn't really get at anything important, and that there may be in some poster's minds a conflation of flexible with good. So that noted, thinking about what I mean by flexibility. I hope I made it clear up thread that I see PbtA as more flexible than D&D. To add to that, however, flexibility is not a quality that is necessarily valuable. Sometimes, the least flexible toolset is the best one. Particularly when you have narrow ends in mind.

To give a (probably horrible) analogy, let's compare two carpenter's toolboxes.

Box A contains a jigsaw, a hammer, a crescent wrench, a grout removal tool, a plane and a 1" chisel. Six tools.
Box B contains a single phillips screwdriver. One tool.

On this occasion, I need to attach one piece of wood to another using philips-head woodscrews. Box B is right for my purpose. Box A contains nothing that will do this job as effectively.

I would also say that sometimes constraints are what make a game more enjoyable for me. How can I solve this issue while staying within the rules is a challenge. On the other end of flexibility, there's the paradox of too many choices. People given too many options tend to be less satisfied with the experience.

To me, it just depends on what kind of experience I'm looking for and how it's implemented. I personally prefer D&D's approach of leaving a fair amount of discretion up to DM. For others it may not be their cup of tea.

 

[Man in the Funny Hat]

I recently ran a session of my 5e campaign using modified Fiasco rules,

I was just thinking that the problem with D&D has always been that it isn't a completely different game altogether, despite all those different editions having the opportunity. Though 4E...