D&D General How much control do DMs need?

[AnotherGuy]

Not the way most people talk about it around here. My-way-or-the-highway-ism is rampant among folks championing Rule Zero.

That's an argument for bad DMs not the implementation of Rule 0.

But let me ask you this regarding the PbtA games, since I'm very unfamiliar with those games: Can a DM, in theory, create a hard move that is in essence 'too hard'? Thus causing the table to question his/her fiction?

 

[AnotherGuy]

I'm not really sure how Rule 0 lets you do this anymore than you would have been able to do otherwise without it. People can and do change the rules of games with or without anything approximating a Rule 0. There are numerous house rules for Monopoly and Uno, for example, that people play with despite an absence of Rule 0 in these games. There are likewise a lot of various house rules, modifications, and adjustments to play in TTRPGs that lack a Rule 0 too. Rule 0 almost feels like a placebo or Dumbo's magic feather.

I'm not sure I understand you. The Banishment and Divine Sense for "fiendish taints" are initially Rule 0 but now become setting house rules.
The transformation of 13 levels is definitely Rule 0. I don't allow such a drastic change with every level up. The fiction was necessary and had to be adequate.

I fail to see how your above gameplay or Rule 0 is pertinent to the GM making moves in PbtA when players fail on their rolls. A GM is not required to make a hard move on a 6- roll. Sometimes soft moves are more appropriate. When GMs make moves in PbtA please note that the most important guideline is "follow the fiction." This is to say that the Moves the GM makes should follow the preceding fiction. The GM is as much beholden to the dice as they are to the fiction.

One can follow the fiction and still screw over PCs right? Is there a limit or is it open ended similar to a DM in D&D. i.e. Is there trust involved on the part of the players towards the DM?

 

[Oofta]

I don't see how any of these rely on the GM having unilateral authority to change the rules. Can't they all be resolved under any system simply by saying 'Hey everyone, why don't we do this?'.

Sure, but what if you have multiple groups? I prefer consistency so it's easier to just implement a handful of house rules. I do discuss most changes with a group, but I have multiple groups. That and most changes are minor or have to do with consistency with my vision of how the world works. Banishment doesn't necessarily send a creature back to it's home plane because A) it's too powerful IMHO, leading to boring "I win" buttons and B) because of the structure of my campaign worlds there is no easy way to shift between planes. Even the gods can't go between the planes easily, you have to use a portal.

That may not matter to you, it does to me and my players don't have an issue with it. Every game I've ever played under multiple DMs the DM makes the final decision on house rules even if we discuss which ones we're going to use at the start of the campaign.

 

[Aldarc]

I'm not sure I understand you. The Banishment and Divine Sense for "fiendish taints" are initially Rule 0 but now become setting house rules.
The transformation of 13 levels is definitely Rule 0. I don't allow such a drastic change with every level up. The fiction was necessary and had to be adequate.

Dumbo thinks he needs a magic feather in order to fly. He loses the magic feather mid-fall and realizes that he could fly without it. IMHO, Rule 0 is Dumbo's magic feather. I don't see why you need Rule 0 to do the things you do. Why do you think that a GM could not do the same things in other tabletop games without a Rule 0?

One can follow the fiction and still screw over PCs right? Is there a limit or is it open ended similar to a DM in D&D. i.e. Is there trust involved on the part of the players towards the DM?

Sure. The game fiction can have consequences that aren't nice and sunny for the PCs. However, games like Apocalypse World and Dungeon World have principles that are also meant to help GMs make decisions for their moves and play: e.g., "be a fan of the players." Moreover, a lot of these sort of games frame a lot of this as a conversation. If the fiction of the GM's move seems incongruent with what the players were doing, the players can push back or clarify their fiction.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

Thats an argument for bad DMs not the implementation of Rule 0.

But let me ask you this regarding the PbtA games, since I'm very unfamiliar with those games: Can a DM, in theory, create a hard move that is in essence 'too hard'? Thus causing the table to question his/her fiction?

That is...a difficult question to answer.

On the one hand, properly playing by the rules, the answer should be "no." At the highest levels, the Agendas conflict with making moves that are "too hard." Here is the text regarding the second Agenda, all emphasis in original:

Filling the characters’ lives with adventure means working with the players to create a world that’s engaging and dynamic. Adventurers are always caught up in some world-threatening danger or another—encourage and foster that kind of action in the game.

Dungeon World adventures never presume player actions. A Dungeon World adventure portrays a setting in motion—someplace significant with creatures big and small pursuing their own goals. As the players come into conflict with that setting and its denizens, action is inevitable. You’ll honestly portray the repercussions of that action.

It is hard to square "honestly portray the repercussions of that action" with making moves that are genuinely inappropriate.

Further, there are multiple Principles that should curtail such things. For example:

• Embrace the fantastic
• Make a move that follows
• Be a fan of the characters
• Begin and end with the fiction

The first is the weakest for this purpose, but still serves: going "too hard" will likely mean making the game less fantastical. The second is very strong, however. Each move needs to reasonably follow from the fiction, that is, the current situation affecting the character(s.) The text describes this as: "When you make a move what you’re actually doing is taking an element of the fiction and bringing it to bear against the characters. Your move should always follow from the fiction. They help you focus on one aspect of the current situation and do something interesting with it. What’s going on? What move makes sense here?"

Being a fan of the characters is also quite strong. Note, however, that it doesn't mean "give the characters everything they want." A fan, in this structure, is someone watching a TV show or reading a book. If the characters instantly win everything forever, the story would be boring, and probably pretty bad. But if they just suffer forever with nothing good, that would also be obviously bad storytelling. "Be a fan" means you want to see them face challenges and overcome them, to wrestle with difficult decisions, to grow and change in response to adversity. A "too hard" move would be one that denies the opportunity to do so.

Beginning and ending with the fiction is critical. Moves only exist because some parts of the fiction have uncertainties or ambiguities that need to be resolved. When I'm using my moves well, they blend invisibly into just...telling a story. They just give me clear, useful structures for how to do that.

Finally, there's one bit of instruction that is very useful here, especially in light of how it tends to be discussed, but I need to explain the difference between "Soft" and "Hard" moves first. A soft move is the threat of something. An opponent knocking an arrow, a cultist lunging forward with a dagger, a boulder rolling down from the cliff above, a fire creeping toward the bookcase, etc., etc., etc. Anything that indicates a problem will happen, but hasn't happened yet, is a soft move. A hard move is a threat that actually manifests. The arrow strikes, the dagger cuts deep, the boulder falls on you or someone/something important, the books flash fire, what-have-you. As a general rule, GM moves are soft moves to begin with. Hard moves are triggered in one of three ways: either because a player ignored a previous soft move (and thus the threat becomes fact), or because a player rolled poorly on a move (often, Defy Danger, since its whole purpose is to respond to a threat!)

For the latter case, the hard move that results from the poor roll are conditioned by whatever move it was. With Defy Danger, the danger isn't defied, it happens. With Discern Realities, I usually prefer to Reveal an Unwelcome Truth, another GM move, but I could also do several others depending on context. E.g., the classic "split the party because someone accidentally activated a secret door and got whisked away" trick (where "Separate Them" is another GM move.) This is, more or less, just the "Make a move that follows" and "Begin and end with the fiction" Principles in action.

The former case is the most relevant here, though, because it is the one where the player's decisions are the factor that triggers a hard move. Specifically, the text speaks of "When the players give you a golden opportunity," and clarifies that an ignored soft move is a golden opportunity for a hard move. However, almost everyone discussing this (and this has always been my policy as well) takes pains to ensure that ignoring the soft move is what the player intended to do. I don't ask it constantly, but if the players are doing something that I don't think they would want to do if they fully understood the situation, I give them a chance to reconsider: typically, "Are you sure?" but sometimes "Do you actually say/do that?" or "Is that what you want to do?" Sometimes it will be a restatement, e.g., "Just so we're clear, the bookcase will catch on fire if you don't stop it."

I believe there's only been one or two times in the past five years where the players and I were just genuinely talking past each other. However many times it was, I have always been willing to go back and address the problem to set things right. I absolutely refuse to be the kind of GM that dicks over his players over persnickety BS or a genuine misunderstanding. If a miscommunication has occurred, I presume it is my fault unless good evidence suggests otherwise. This makes it almost impossible to make a move that is "too hard."

 

[Imaro]

I would discuss the issue with them, with the exact approach depending on the nature and severity of their concerns.

E.g., if they mention it privately rather than bringing it up during session, I would discuss it with them privately first, and if no resolution can be achieved there, bring it to the group's attention. Whenever possible, even for really non-issue things like "someone can't make it to session this week, so we are just not going to have one," I try to avoid explicitly naming people unless there's very good reason to do so (e.g., if someone is taking a leave for a few weeks, not just a one-off.) I find that that makes people more willing to come to me if there's an issue.

As noted, the nature of the concern will affect my approach. Perhaps the criticism is, "It's not fair that their character gets to be rebuilt from the ground up, but not anyone else." That's a reasonable concern, and we can discuss possible fixes--for example, if they want to rebuild, we can work toward a quick but personal in-game solution for it. Or if they just want everyone to be offered the same opportunity, that can quite easily be arranged. Alternatively, maybe their concern is that this puts undue focus on just one character and their personal crisis of faith, at which point I would reassure the player that I take it extremely seriously to give every character opportunities for cool story; if they aren't happy with how things are currently going, I am more than happy to work with them to improve, perhaps introducing more story hooks, framing more scenes that address their interests, or coordinating with them to produce engaging personal narratives similar to such a "crisis of faith that it changes how I fight" kind of thing.

I am, of course, assuming that the complaint is in good faith. If it is not in good faith, I will endeavor to be positive but push the player toward a healthier understanding of the situation. For example, if the player is opposed simply because "character rebuilds shouldn't be allowed," I would hear them out, and then present my case for why unjustified character rebuilds are certainly a problem, but this one is justified, and that this rebuild is pretty focused and constrained, rather than becoming a radically different person. There may be other examples, this is just one. Should that effort fail, and the player remain opposed for bad-faith reasons, well, that strongly implies that this player is a bad fit for my game, and I might end up having to ask them to leave, as they are being disruptive for reasons that seem petty and inappropriate.

Of course, I try to keep an open dialogue with my players basically all the time, and (as I have said in many posts), I will bend over backwards to support genuine player enthusiasm, meaning the player being enthusiastic about something that is not abusive, coercive, or exploitative. As a result, by being even-handed, open, and supportive, I am usually not in a situation where a player really digs in their heels and says no--if anything, I'm more egging my players on, rather than having to persuade them to go with something.

Thanks for answering... my follow up question would be... is it you making the final determination? Highest number of for or against votes or some other method?

 

[Imaro]

In theory but there is still a significant social contract in non-rule zero games, including the need for compromise and to move on with the game, as well as the particular role of the GM in that system and group.

I just don't recognise the existence of any potential impasse that players in your game would quietly accept because of rule zero, while players in my game would deadlock the game and refuse to move on because of no rule zero.

Well I think when there is an authority figure that you all have chosen to accept vs. a table of equals the dynamics are different. I can't argue with your experiences but my experience has been that when the players have accepted a DM they will defer to his authority at a certain point (again this doesn't mean you do not argue your case or try to sway the DM). While with a table of equals the discussion goes on much longer, sides develop and can entrench in the game and the resolution tends to fall back to no change state by default.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

Thanks for answering... my follow up question would be... is it you making the final determination? Highest number of for or against votes or some other method?

When it comes to whether a player is being constructive, it probably is my call, but that isn't part of the game rules. That's a social consideration.

When it comes to addressing the good-faith concerns, it's about reaching consensus. Each player either agrees or disagrees initially. My goal, then, is to adjust until everyone agrees things can go forward. That does not really parse into any of your provided methods. It's not about votes, because I don't want anyone to feel outvoted or vetoed. It's not about me making a final determination, because I work until the group agrees--that doesn't parse as anyone exercising "authority," and much more as each person exercising assent.

It's certainly possible that a player could convince me that my chosen course is incorrect, and that a better solution can be found. I almost always ask my players for feedback about how things went, so that's a good option. More commonly, as with the character-rebuild thing, the concern is less "this is wrong and shouldn't happen" and more "X is happening, but Y isn't coming with it, an that's not okay." Hence, working with the player to make Y happen resolves the issue, achieving consensus. Or perhaps the concern is more like, "I feel like I'm being left out." At that point, the issue is clearly my fault--I have not done my job as GM properly, having been an insufficient fan of the concerned player's character. Thus, the concern raised is an instruction, even if the player doesn't realize this, for me to do better. And that can be quite easily arranged simply by listening to their concerns and offering options I'm comfortable with that will address those concerns.

Is the concerned player the one "making the final determination" because I will work until their concerns are addressed? Or am I the one "making the final determination" because I'm offering/accepting solutions? Or is it the group "making the final determination" because we achieve consensus? This is my problem with the question: it essentially assumes that there must be some singular, final authority, and that's...just not really how conversations resolve, but "resolve via conversation" is how DW addresses this sort of thing.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

Well I think when there is an authority figure that you all have chosen to accept vs. a table of equals the dynamics are different. I can't argue with your experiences but my experience has been that when the players have accepted a DM they will defer to his authority at a certain point (again this doesn't mean you do not argue your case or try to sway the DM). While with a table of equals the discussion goes on much longer, sides develop and can entrench in the game and the resolution tends to fall back to no change state by default.

And my experience has been rather the opposite. As I said, I work, as much as possible, to earn my players' trust and respect. Of course, it helps that they are already my friends, but still. I do what I can, when I can, to support literally anything my players want to do that isn't abusive, coercive, or exploitative. They know this. This means that they know, if there's even a shred of merit to their concerns, I will work with them to find it, discuss it, and address it. There is no need to "entrench," because we are actively and continually working to support one another, rather than trying to oppose one another. (Of course, some NPCs I run do oppose them! But I do not. That's critical.)

Sometimes, discussion does run a little longer than I'd like, but never for bad reasons. People ask good questions, give warranted answers, and generally seek only to make the game better, fuller, more interesting for everyone involved. Why bother with factions when all you need do is say, "Hey, I'm not sure about X," and the group will listen and work with you to address it?

 

[Imaro]

The problem is, that "agreement" is often never actually stated...and a significant portion of the time, it becomes contentious specifically because the DM is using rule zero in a way which seems to be inconsistent with that agreement. I can't tell you how many posters on this forum have said that their argument in favor of doing a thing I personally vehemently oppose (such as fudging) is, in not so many words, "What, don't you trust me?" And such an argument is one of the best ways to make me think someone doesn't deserve my trust.

I will say that if rule zero is stated as part of a game in the rules...you are implicitely agreeing to it if you join a session of that game. Now I do think it is fair and within your rights to understand what things that DM will use rule zero for as well as making it clear what application of it is a non-starter for you. To me that is a session zero discussion if it's a concern, but for most groups I've played with it isn't.

That is, the player is going to object only in cases where "the judgment of the DM to make the calls for the betterment of the game overall" is being disputed. When the "faith in...[giving] this person the power" has been shaken. At which point you aren't going to make any progress at all by citing Rule Zero or someone's agreement (whether tacit or explicit) with it. Instead, you have to restore the lost trust, reassure the objecting player, make clear that that faith does not need to be disputed. And that's exactly what you'd do without an explicit Rule Zero everyone has agreed to, isn't it?

I don't necessarily agree that the DM choosing to implement a change you don't like is grounds for your faith being shaken, again he is concerned with the most beneficial choice for the entire table vs. your personal preference. As an example if everyone at the table wants to play with feats in 5e except you and the DM decides to allow feats...is your faith shaken at that point. Putting it a different way...would you feel the same way if a decision you didn't agree with was enacted because the majority of the group wanted something you didn't... would your faith in the group be shaken at that point?

So, do you genuinely believe that simply having each player explicitly say, "I will trust the DM to exercise power reasonably, and have faith in her judgment, and accept that her decisions are good of the game overall even if they seem to be bad choices," will thus prevent any possibility of any player ceasing to believe that the DM's use of such power actually is reasonable, involves sound judgment, and is solely for the good of the game overall?

See above. Also, I think that if you don't believe a DM is making majority (because no one is perfect) of their choices around rule zero in order to benefit the group as a whole (as opposed to your personal preferences) you shouldn't play games run by them. Of course if everyone else is having a good time and you are the only one who isn't... it may not be that their choices were bad.

Because I don't believe that for a second. The existence of even an explicit agreement (and such things are almost never explicit IRL) does not prevent the possibility of anyone saying, "Wait, that makes no sense at all, how could that possibly be good for the game, even overall???" And as soon as that happens, the aforementioned agreement is already out the window, because the player believes the DM has violated it.

No it's not. Rule zero is not a gag order that silences all discussion and opposition. Rule zero says the final determination is in the hands of this particular individual. That's all. And again if you truly believe their decisions are not benefiting the group... why would you continue to play under them. Much more commonly I see a player whose personal preferences aren't catered to and they then assume that the group shares those preferences.

Not the way most people talk about it around here. My-way-or-the-highway-ism is rampant among folks championing Rule Zero.

well I've said it before... I'm not sure the way I run my games I am 100% traditional, I use what I want to create what I think will make a better game... so I may have a skewed perception of things like rule zero thought I doubt the majority of actual DM's are tyrants wielding an iron fist over their game and players.