D&D General How much control do DMs need?

[Lanefan]

I was talking more generally of why or how Rule Zero would be necessary for what you did. If Rule Zero didn't exist in D&D, then it seems like you could have still done exactly what you did. This is why I compared Rule Zero to a placebo pill or a magic feather. It doesn't really enable you to do anything that you couldn't have done without it.

Agreed. What Rule 0 does do is make it clear to all involved that the DM is within purview to do these things, which historically wasn't always clarified in player-side materials.

 

[Lanefan]

Agreed, DW naturally operates as a 'ToTM' kind of system, but that's not to say you CANNOT use minis and such! In fact I think is a perfectly natural thing to want to do, and I've always been a fan of such game aids. Remember, AD&D 1e melee combat rules specifically eschew the concept of a definite position for each character in melee (I know some people will try to push back on this, they will fail, trust me).

I dislike it when others do this and so I apologize in advance, but: citations?

 

[Imaro]

Speaking from experience, my answers here are yes and yes.

Wait maybe I'm mis-understadning you but are you saying that if the DM doesn't choose what you personally want, your faith in him is shaken?

 

[Lanefan]

Another pink elepant: Why is Rule 0 (and the game at large) so often presented in terms of what power the GM alone has, rather than the group as a whole playing by consensus? Especially considering that Rule 0 generally gets brought up precisely when a decision needs to be made on the fly. EzekielRaiden's many recent posts on consensus and trust speak quite clearly to that. Sure, somebody has to make the snap decision, but following it up with "Is that cool for everybody?" doesn't seem all that hard to do.

In theory, asking "Is that cool for everybody?" isn't hard to do.

In practice it's an open invitation to grind the session to a halt for a long rules discussion/argument; an invitation which some are all too often ready and willing to accept. Been there, done that, many times over; and so it's rare-if-ever I'd ask that question now.

 

[pemerton]

1. A player had his cleric suffer a crisis of faith, now believing that he is not one of his Deities chosen because of some in-game abilities that did not have the assumed effect. This was interpreted that he was not as close, important to his Deity or that he had disappointed or angered him in some way. Nevertheless he wanted to remain a servant of said deity but in a reduced capacity. When he went up a level and through some communing and some minor roleplaying scenes I used Rule 0 to enact the players wishes.
I transformed his 13 levels of cleric to 13 levels of Paladin. He wanted to rely less on his deity's mercy and more on himself to get the job done. He assumed he wasn't worthy to wield Kelemvor's direct might.

In my 4e game, when the human wizard (multiclass invoker) was raised from the dead, he was reborn as a deva invoker (multiclass wizard): Wizard PC dies, returns as Invoker

This was at the player's request. Later on in the campaign, the same player gained the powers of the Eye of Vecna by implanting it into his Book Imp familiar.

Vincent Baker has talked somewhere-or-other about custom advancements for Apocalypse World PCs.

Luke Crane, in the Monster Burner for Burning Wheel, talks about how to vary lifepaths or design custom lifepaths.

The very first time I started a Rolemaster campaign, with the very first PC who was built, the player wanted his staff to attack on the "knock over" table rather than the "quarter staff" table, to reflect a particular technique the character had practised, and I said that was fine. Even though the books nowhere talked about that sort of option.

I don't really see how this sort of thing depends on "rule zero". In any system of character building or character advancements, it's going to be possible for players to imagine different approaches from the default or canonical ones, and coming up with alternatives will often not be very hard.

 

[niklinna]

Out of interest since it wasn't clear in the reply and I got curious when you were referring to the game's mythos, is BitD set within a fantasy setting that includes God's and magic and supernatural creatures?

All of those, but referenced at most by name and sometimes areas of influence rather than any concrete stats: those are all up to the particular table to fill in. The book talks about Forgotten Gods—there is one big "state religion" mentioned as a faction for the PCs to interact with.

Magic is very loosely defined indeed. I recently played a whisper and was a bit at a loss for what I was actually capable of! It boiled down to me just saying "I would like to produce effect X" and the GM saying yea or nay. We could have talked out in advance what magic was capable of. What the game does say is there is a "ghost field", essentially an ethereal plane, that anybody with a particular skill can attune to, in order to see ghosts, echoes of the past, and such. You can even shift into the ghost field. Some special abilities allow you to use Attune to compel a ghost to do what you want, or summon a storm.

And boy howdy are there supernatural creatures. In addition to ghosts, there are hollows (zombies), and vampires (living people who've been possessed by a ghost too long)—all of which are available as PC playbooks by the way. The book doesn't provide a bestiary but the GM can easily whip up NPCs and creatures on the fly.

 

[Clint_L]

...sure? Clint_L asked if there's a point in using miniatures in Dungeon World. I said yes, there is a point, as clearly conveying positional relations between combatants has value in a game that has a lot of combat scenes.

The way I see the question posed, it's not about counting cells on a square grid, it's about the desire to touch and look at carefully painted miniatures while playing the game.

It's a bit of column A, a bit of column B - just in my experience. The building and playing with miniatures/terrain is its own reward, for sure. But with 5e, using them also changes the natures of the game - there are enough tactical rules that players engage in problem-solving differently, perhaps more mathematically, than they do when resolving combat through theatre of the mind. For D&D, I like the physical sets. For a game like Monsterhearts or Dread, theatre of the mind is the way to go, aside from basic maps, perhaps, to help players better visualize the situation.

Frankly, I find using miniatures and terrain almost the only thing that saves D&D combat encounters from being a tedious slog, at least for me.

 

[Lanefan]

Wait maybe I'm mis-understadning you but are you saying that if the DM doesn't choose what you personally want, your faith in him is shaken?

To a point, yes; particularly if-when I've raised what I feel are valid concerns. And I'm not talking about minor stuff like changing the range of a spell or allowing/banning a specific class-species combo, I'm talking major stuff like on the fly system changes or major rules overhauls.

There's been other times when my faith in the group has been bashed around as well.

But note, shaken is still a long way from broken. On broken, I'm out.

 

[AnotherGuy]

Magic is very loosely defined indeed. I recently played a whisper and was a bit at a loss for what I was actually capable of! It boiled down to me just saying "I would like to produce effect X" and the GM saying yea or nay.

This last part seems like DM decides when I would have thought this being a modern indie game - the dice would direct the DM rather than his opinion.

 

[hawkeyefan]

It's a bit of column A, a bit of column B - just in my experience. The building and playing with miniatures/terrain is its own reward, for sure. But with 5e, using them also changes the natures of the game - there are enough tactical rules that players engage in problem-solving differently, perhaps more mathematically, than they do when resolving combat through theatre of the mind. For D&D, I like the physical sets. For a game like Monsterhearts or Dread, theatre of the mind is the way to go, aside from basic maps, perhaps, to help players better visualize the situation.

Frankly, I find using miniatures and terrain almost the only thing that saves D&D combat encounters from being a tedious slog, at least for me.

As others have said, there’s nothing stopping you from using minis and a map in Dungeon World. However, it’s not likely to do much more than serve as a visual reference. The tactical consideration in DW doesn’t come from the map.

If you did use a map, I’d recommend using one with no grid. Exact spacing and distances and areas of effect aren’t really a thing in DW. You don’t want the grid make people start seeing things that way.