D&D General How much control do DMs need?

[pemerton]

I'd consider Gary's game design chops, at a 'what kind of game architecture will work?' level over that of ANY modern RPG designer.

Now this is a big call.

I think I might put Vincent Baker ahead of him. It's hard, because we can't test the important counterfactuals (about what Baker might have come up with if Gygax hadn't already done what he did).

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

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?

Well, I think you would consider something like "Rocks fall and you all die" to be 'too hard'. It certainly violates the agenda and fails to follow the principles laid out in the DW rules. This is a key point though, anything that is 'not right for the GM to do' WILL violate those! I mean, there might be some corner cases and things, but the GM is a fan of the PCs. He's supposed to be challenging them, not wiping them out. I mean, its OK if the story really turns out to be "and they all fought bravely before they fell." but its all gotta make sense (follow from the fiction).

There are lesser senses in which a move might be 'too hard'. Generally its best to ratchet up the tension. If you hit the players with a hard core life and death situation right at the start of things you risk everything coming after being anticlimax. OTOH there are many ways of pacing things, and many reasons to frame certain scenes. I can definitely see a very dangerous situation being the very first scene in a DW campaign, for example. Lets see what this motley crew can do! This is sure to kind of get the PCs mettle tested and set up what comes after. Once the danger is past, there's a letdown and new fiction can be established, the danger related to the game situation, etc. Its a decent way to start. The same 'hard move' might not work well at all in a different situation.

So this is really where GMing experience and 'feel' are going to come into play with something like DW. Its not difficult to GM exactly, but there are different potentially better or worse options, and practicing as a GM will definitely make you better.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

My only mussing on this is... is it possible that in trying to compromise for everyone... no one really gets what they want but instead everyone kind of gets a secondary consolation prize for all.

You know what? If more people understood that compromise means you are trading your narrow idea of what YOU want in order to create a wider vision of what everyone wants together, a thing which has its own intrinsic worth, then the world would be a thousand times better place than it is today. People dig into their positions and refuse to give an inch because they fail to see the other people they are dealing with as equals and fellow players. Given the subject matter, RPGS, I will venture to state that compromise is ALWAYS possible, and basically ALWAYS better than deadlock. In the real world I can see where sometimes a conflict is so basic that each side's position is existential, but not when we are discussing games. You can meet the other guy halfway, and if you consider compromises as nothing but 'secondary consolation prizes' you're already setting up the conditions for failure.

 

[Oofta]

You know what? If more people understood that compromise means you are trading your narrow idea of what YOU want in order to create a wider vision of what everyone wants together, a thing which has its own intrinsic worth, then the world would be a thousand times better place than it is today. People dig into their positions and refuse to give an inch because they fail to see the other people they are dealing with as equals and fellow players. Given the subject matter, RPGS, I will venture to state that compromise is ALWAYS possible, and basically ALWAYS better than deadlock. In the real world I can see where sometimes a conflict is so basic that each side's position is existential, but not when we are discussing games. You can meet the other guy halfway, and if you consider compromises as nothing but 'secondary consolation prizes' you're already setting up the conditions for failure.

I really, really wish a compromise was always possible. I mean, after a certain amount of arguing about something, most people will eventually let player who talks over everyone else the loudest win because they just get tired and it's not worth it. If you've never had that guy in your group (and it's almost always a guy) your lucky.

This has nothing to do with trust, etc. but I've DMed a lot for public games and we allow just about anyone to sit at the table unless they're outright abusive. Unfortunately being an opinionated A-hole doesn't usually meet the standard of kicking them. Of course I'll listen to people, but in the middle of a game they get a minute or so and then I make a ruling and we move on. If they want, we can discuss further after the game.

That, and a lot of times there simply isn't no "right" answer. I don't remember the last time I had to take a hard stance as a DM, it's usually just a "here's how I run it" and we move on because it's something like stealth. Even then it's typically something the person looks up after the call was made and we move on.

 

[Oofta]

Just to add to the above ... let's assume Bob wants something to work one way and as a DM I want it to work another. Now Bob can be obstinate on stupid things and is a bit of a power gamer who tries to eek out edge cases. Pretty much everyone at the table realizes this, except Bob. What kind of compromise is there for this person? It's not like it's the DM vs the entire table, it's Bob trying to pull some shenanigan the DM doesn't want to deal with and the rest of the table either agrees with the DM or don't care.

I play in a game with a Bob. I'm not the DM, but every now and then the DM just needs to tell Bob that it doesn't work that way (i.e. taking too many actions or obviously bending the rules to the breaking point). I guess we could stop the game while we all tell Bob he can't do that, but several of the people at the table are newbies (Bob isn't) and simply don't know the rules. It doesn't rise to the level of disinviting Bob but if we have to switch times/venues to when Bob can't make it I don't think anyone will be too heartbroken.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

If there's a dispute, you by definition cannot reach consensus without some or all of the participants compromising their position.

Nope.

Consider my example above, of a player feeling that it is unfair that only the one person gets to rework their character, not everyone. Their position is, in simple terms, "Either everyone should get this benefit, or no one should get this benefit." Meanwhile, my initial position is simply, "The cleric gets this benefit."

No one needs to compromise or give up things they value to make these positions align. It is as simple as, "Oh, that's okay, we can give everyone a chance to do the same thing. The reasons will be different though, so if anyone else wants to rework their character, even in a small way, we just need to sit down and work out the how and why." Likewise, if the player individually wants something (like, say, spending group money on a personal benefit), there's no compromise required in saying that they'll pay it forward or take a lesser share of future treasure or the like. That's just the players agreeing between themselves how treasure will be distributed, something everyone agrees needs to happen (assuming everyone is actually playing in good faith, of course.)

The only situations that actually meet your description are the ones where two+ groups want, on at least one axis, mutually exclusive things, and thus only one side or the other can get what they want.

My players haven't given me a situation yet where that is true. The closest they've come was when they approached a powerful NPC ally (a disguised gold dragon) and asked if he would be willing to come to their aid, should they get caught in a desperate situation. My immediate response was dismay, as I worried I would be robbing their victories of meaning if I said yes, but crapping on their agency if I said no, both terrible options. However, on reflection, I understood what their true desire was: a safety net, an emergency get-out-of-jail-free card just in case things went absolutely to $#!+. That isn't a compromise in my eyes; it navigates the Scylla and Charybdis of this problem well. So of course I worked out a solution and confirmed it was sufficient for their needs. TL;DR: NPC made them earrings, one lets them chat with each other freely so long as they're more or less on the same continen (crazy useful!) and the other can be sacrificed to summon the NPC to the party should desperate times call for it, but only once, and only briefly--an escape, a rescue, perhaps a few moments to turn a nasty fight around, but no more. All of my interests were satisfied (I did not feel I was wronging the party, neither robbing their victories nor ignoring their agency), and all of my players' interests were satisfied (they got a powerful NPC's help for an emergency, if needed.)

My experience with consensus-run groups (both in and out of RPGing) is that either a) true consensus tends to generate results where nobody walks away happy, or (more often) b) consensus is used as bad-faith cover by the most persuasive person and-or best lobbyist in order to ultimately get their way.

I don't think either has occurred in my game. I actively engage with my players both in and out of game, both individually and collectively, to make sure their needs are being met. As noted above, I have encouraged an environment where, if someone has an issue, they can bring it to me and I will anonymously discuss it with the group, that way the quiet folks can speak up without having to scrape up their courage first (as someone with at least mild social anxiety, that's something I very much understand.) When there are instigator players, I work with them to make sure their interests are aligning with the group's; as I said, something of a facilitator role, rather than referee or autocrat.

Everyone at the table wants everyone else to have a great time. That means everyone understands that just getting amazing/fun/desirable things for themselves is not enough, or worse, actively detrimental. The party shares gear; the Bard once spent quite a bit of his personal money on a magic ring of flight, only to later acquire a different ability to fly on his own; the ring has since been shared with the party on the regular, such that I want to say the Battlemaster has actually worn it more than the Bard has. This wasn't a request; it was actively volunteered by the Bard, because doing so was helpful to the group and its goals.

That's all you need: a genuine commitment to helping everyone have fun, not just yourself. Finding ways to build a great experience for others, not just yourself. Obviously, still have fun and do awesome things. My job as GM is to help make that happen. Agenda: "portray a fantastic world," "fill the characters' lives with adventure"; Principles: "embrace the fantastic," "be a fan of the characters." My players, likewise, have their own job to do, namely doing adventurous things and being fantastic while doing them. And one of the best parts of most fantasy adventures is struggling alongside your True Companions as you journey forth.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

Just to add to the above ... let's assume Bob wants something to work one way and as a DM I want it to work another. Now Bob can be obstinate on stupid things and is a bit of a power gamer who tries to eek out edge cases. Pretty much everyone at the table realizes this, except Bob. What kind of compromise is there for this person? It's not like it's the DM vs the entire table, it's Bob trying to pull some shenanigan the DM doesn't want to deal with and the rest of the table either agrees with the DM or don't care.

I play in a game with a Bob. I'm not the DM, but every now and then the DM just needs to tell Bob that it doesn't work that way (i.e. taking too many actions or obviously bending the rules to the breaking point). I guess we could stop the game while we all tell Bob he can't do that, but several of the people at the table are newbies (Bob isn't) and simply don't know the rules. It doesn't rise to the level of disinviting Bob but if we have to switch times/venues to when Bob can't make it I don't think anyone will be too heartbroken.

Bob is playing in bad faith. Why keep playing with someone you know plays in bad faith?

This is exactly equivalent to having a viking-hat DM who mostly uses Rule Zero okay, but she clumsily tries to force the party in certain directions with fudging. Call her Alice. Newbie players may not realize it's happening, but the old hands know, and if it's enough of an offense they'll speak out. Alice backs down if sufficiently challenged, but she keeps doing it. If she has to stop running games for a while because of IRL issues, no one is particularly broken up about it...but DM shortage being what it is, someone willing to run something, even if you know they make some calls you don't like, is still enough to draw people to the table.

If we aren't supposed to take arguments based on bad-faith DMs into account for criticizing "ultimate" authority and Rule Zero usage, why should we accept arguments based on bad-faith players for criticism of consensus-building and avoiding Rule Zero?

 

[Oofta]

Bob is playing in bad faith. Why keep playing with someone you know plays in bad faith?

Because we're running a public game. Because Bob is not a bad guy, even if he is likely somewhere on the autism scale. Because even reasonable people can sometimes have differences of opinion. In other cases perhaps not-Bob is a good friend even if they are kind of annoying sometimes. Because they're fantastic at role playing and add a lot to the game.

Burt primarily? Because nobody is perfect and we're not going to kick them out of the game just because sometimes they need to be told they can't do something.

This is exactly equivalent to having a viking-hat DM who mostly uses Rule Zero okay, but she clumsily tries to force the party in certain directions with fudging. Call her Alice. Newbie players may not realize it's happening, but the old hands know, and if it's enough of an offense they'll speak out. Alice backs down if sufficiently challenged, but she keeps doing it. If she has to stop running games for a while because of IRL issues, no one is particularly broken up about it...but DM shortage being what it is, someone willing to run something, even if you knowthey make some calls you don't like, is still enough to draw people to the table.


If we aren't supposed to take arguments based on bad-faith DMs into account for criticizing "ultimate" authority and Rule Zero usage, why should we accept arguments based on bad-faith players for criticism of consensus-building and avoiding Rule Zero?

There's a difference between horrible players who get kicked out of the game and Bob. There's a difference between a DM I'd never voluntarily play with and a DM who isn't perfect but otherwise I'm enjoying the game.

Maybe you live in this ideal world where everyone holds hands singing kum-ba-ya in perfect harmony. I don't. As DM, it's incredibly rare I can't come to agreement, but the game runs more smoothly for me whether I'm DMing or playing if the DM just makes the call and we all move on. Because whether I'll admit it or not, it's possible I've been a Bob too without realizing it.

edit: In decades of play I've had 1 DM that followed the rules strictly to the letter and was still the worst DM I've ever had. I had another DM who started doing stupid monster tricks by using a brutal crit/fumble system (that only hurt the PCs) but honestly I just think they were burned out and didn't want to just admit that they needed to take a break. Which they got, because we all quit. I don't think I've ever met this hypothetical all controlling DM. It's a giant controlling DM strawman that's 1 in a million as far as I can tell.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

I have a world map and outlines of powers but there are a lot of blank spaces. Part of that is because the main continent is way too large, but I've been using it forever so I'm not going to change. If I had set up something reasonable, say the size of the British Isles, it would probably be quite a bit more filled out. On the other hand, the word "kingdom" can mean many things. A large valley somewhere? Monaco is an independent country (smallest if you don't count Vatican City) at less than 1 square mile. Liechtenstein in the center of Europe is 133 square miles, with a handful of island nations like San Marino (24 square miles) somewhere in between.

So again, it's a matter of scale. So a city state like Monaco? I can find room for that. Even a Liechtenstein now and then, no problem. But looking at my handy dandy "100 smallest countries" chart, something like Greece (50,949 square miles and the largest country on the list) would be odd to just pop up unless it was a distant island nation. I'd also question why we needed to add a brand new kingdom. Why not just use one that's already been described? Describe what kind of backstory you have and I'll give you options of where you can come from.

I think it points out that it makes sense to have setting transparency with players. For example, Doskvol, the city where Blades in the Dark is set, is entirely known to the players. We even know as much about the whole world as the GM. The description says there are, IIRC 4 islands. As part of my character's background I described him as coming from another heretofore undescribed, but now lost, island. I know, because I have read all the setting material, that this doesn't clash in any major way with how the setting works, etc. My character was, effectively, an orphan since Shimayama no longer existed, but that was cool, our headquarters was an orphanage! And one of the other characters was definitely from a powerful family (but foreigners). The other two were, I think a bit less defined at the start, though one turned out to have once had a fairly well-off family too (their estate factored into his story). The fourth one was more of a mystery in that department. None of it made anyone less equal.

If someone pitched an idea for a campaign where everyone starts out as wealthy, we could work something out. But what I'm concerned with is balance.



The thing is that some people don't realize they're abusing the system to the point of it being an issue. The story I told above of the group discussing the issues we all had with their abuse of the noble background? When we had the intervention, the guy seemed to be genuinely surprised. They didn't realize they were being, for lack of a better term, a power hog that was dominating combat.

I don't think the guy who abused his background was a bad guy. He was just not very aware of the impression and impact it had on other players. It was like everyone playing an online video game but one person was using cheat codes to give themselves a powerup. The issue wasn't the level of power so much as it was the imbalance. In my experience people like to feel like they're contributing equally.



I certainly try to have background matter even if I don't use it as much as I could. I've just never figured out how to have backgrounds have significant impact, not just being helpful bonuses either mechanically or RP wise, without getting too meta-gamey.

If the group all had ties to wealth or power, we could probably come up with some system for accountability. Yes, you have access to the royal treasury but that treasury comes from taxes so there are limits to how much can be spent and why. Or yes, you have connections to the local militia but their power is not unlimited so use them wisely. You'd have to have some kind of resource pool, probably something pulled in from another system (I know there are some superhero systems that implement some of this).

So it could work. I may even discuss it as an option when discussing our next campaign if I had a system to handle everyone in the group having access to powerful outside influences. But part of the fun of D&D is going from zero to hero for a lot of people, myself included. Not sure what that journey would look like if I was already heir to the throne.

I might once have thought like this, but in the last 15-20 years I've run stuff that is just MUCH less formula. If one PC has a way to get some resource, its going to contribute to the group, or else maybe if it doesn't that too could be its own story! I mean, like games with progression, and I certainly enjoyed the balanced effectiveness of 4e PCs, but it would have to be a specific sort of game for just basic material wealth or 'contacts' or such to be that central that it would make a huge difference if one character had access to a pile of gold or whatever.

I don't see players in the light of people that can 'abuse' something. They're spinning stories, and I'm as much stagehand as anything else. I'll help smooth over some sort of issue that 2 players have with each other, or if I really find someone's play to be offputting to me I'd tell them, but I'm not the boss of anyone. There's nothing to abuse or get advantage over. I agree that it is potentially feasible to find that one out of a group of players is an uncooperative jerk who will sabotage play, but I don't think taking away their pile of gold is going to fix that.

 

[Oofta]

I think it points out that it makes sense to have setting transparency with players. For example, Doskvol, the city where Blades in the Dark is set, is entirely known to the players. We even know as much about the whole world as the GM. The description says there are, IIRC 4 islands. As part of my character's background I described him as coming from another heretofore undescribed, but now lost, island. I know, because I have read all the setting material, that this doesn't clash in any major way with how the setting works, etc. My character was, effectively, an orphan since Shimayama no longer existed, but that was cool, our headquarters was an orphanage! And one of the other characters was definitely from a powerful family (but foreigners). The other two were, I think a bit less defined at the start, though one turned out to have once had a fairly well-off family too (their estate factored into his story). The fourth one was more of a mystery in that department. None of it made anyone less equal.

I might once have thought like this, but in the last 15-20 years I've run stuff that is just MUCH less formula. If one PC has a way to get some resource, its going to contribute to the group, or else maybe if it doesn't that too could be its own story! I mean, like games with progression, and I certainly enjoyed the balanced effectiveness of 4e PCs, but it would have to be a specific sort of game for just basic material wealth or 'contacts' or such to be that central that it would make a huge difference if one character had access to a pile of gold or whatever.

I don't see players in the light of people that can 'abuse' something. They're spinning stories, and I'm as much stagehand as anything else. I'll help smooth over some sort of issue that 2 players have with each other, or if I really find someone's play to be offputting to me I'd tell them, but I'm not the boss of anyone. There's nothing to abuse or get advantage over. I agree that it is potentially feasible to find that one out of a group of players is an uncooperative jerk who will sabotage play, but I don't think taking away their pile of gold is going to fix that.

It's not even that the players are being uncooperative on purpose though. It's that the group dynamics can get out of whack when there's perceived unfairness. Even dogs get upset when treated unequally.

Of course the other thing is that I'm probably just too lazy to figure out how to make it work.