D&D General How much control do DMs need?

[EzekielRaiden]

I'm another poster in agreement with @Aldarc, @chaochou and @soviet.

And I'm another. Also, snipped part: well-said.

You keep arguing against these points, but I haven't seen anyone arguing for them. I don't think they're positions anyone here holds.

I mean, it's a lot easier to argue against points no one is making and blow positions you disagree with out of proportion.

 

[Oofta]

I think there's an assumption there that 'compromise' or 'reaching an agreement' needs to involve one side giving up something. In this case Bob obviously doesn't press the point and goes back to playing however the other people at the table seem to want to play. Be careful though, there may be times when Bob's notion of how things should go might actually work well! I mean, again, this is all too hypothetical to say, but until you admit the POSSIBILITY of changing your position, you face the danger of a failure to reach an agreement.

In the case of Bob (not the player's real name) a typical scenario would be something that they want to do on their turn that would require 3 actions and moving further than their base speed. The guy just gets a bit carried away while the rest of us want to follow the rules of the game.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

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.



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.

I really think you're doing fine here. I don't think this is a case that illustrates a need for absolute authority, it just illustrates the fact that there are situations where one side should get everything it wants. Now, maybe some day Bob, if he's savvy, will say "hey Oofta, I did things your way all those times, can you do something for me here?" Is he wrong? No, I don't think so! Its still going to be a negotiation/discussion but if I was you I'd feel like "yeah, he's been cooperative, lets see what we can do..." And frankly, I think you probably agree. All I know is, my personal games have all mostly been successful (a few fizzled) and I always negotiate when someone has a difference of opinion with me at the table. So it DOES work. Now and then a game has gone in a bit different direction than I had envisaged, but I've also learned that games generally work better with shared vision without one dominant viewpoint.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

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.

lol, I doubt that! I KNOW I'm too lazy to fight with people much, though! hehe.

 

[soviet]

In the case of Bob (not the player's real name) a typical scenario would be something that they want to do on their turn that would require 3 actions and moving further than their base speed. The guy just gets a bit carried away while the rest of us want to follow the rules of the game.

But how do you imagine this plays out at a table without rule zero? Does every session devolve into a junior UN where play is deadlocked while votes are taken and extended negotiations are conducted? Or do you think that the adults in the room discuss it for a moment, reach a compromise, and move on?

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

And these boards are RIFE with people who flat out state that it is impossible to run a game, or that some vast swath of the typical RPG fare is unachievable, without a central authoritative GM. Don't even pretend this is a one-way street. And we're (if I can speak for any others) not 'dismissive' of classical RPG play either, this is the tradition we are coming from and in which any newer practices are rooted! I have no problem with what Arneson did, and I entirely understand his reasons. I think we generally game in a different climate than Dave did, so our needs are not his, and our game designs differ, that's all.

 

[soviet]

And these boards are RIFE with people who flat out state that it is impossible to run a game, or that some vast swath of the typical RPG fare is unachievable, without a central authoritative GM. Don't even pretend this is a one-way street. And we're (if I can speak for any others) not 'dismissive' of classical RPG play either, this is the tradition we are coming from and in which any newer practices are rooted! I have no problem with what Arneson did, and I entirely understand his reasons. I think we generally game in a different climate than Dave did, so our needs are not his, and our game designs differ, that's all.

100%. As much as I end up on the dirty hippy side of these threads, my current game as a player is 5e and my last game as a GM (short campaign ended about a month ago) was WFRP 1e.

 

[Oofta]

But how do you imagine this plays out at a table without rule zero? Does every session devolve into a junior UN where play is deadlocked while votes are taken and extended negotiations are conducted? Or do you think that the adults in the room discuss it for a moment, reach a compromise, and move on?

Good question. I assume people expect others to follow the rules of the game and vote on various things. Which we frequently do in D&D, it's just that there's more variation than in some games because of the nature of how the rules are structured. When I've been in committees, it always seems that at some point one person becomes the decider whether or not it's an official role.

But this implication that we don't discuss it like adults in a D&D game is an example of what I have an issue with. Of course we discuss it like adults. But most decisions made in D&D are not earth shattering. They aren't nearly as important as finding a group that is simply compatible with the rest of the people at the table. You want to vote on everything? Go for it. I've been in situations where that would make people very uncomfortable and I'd rather avoid it.

End of the day ... again ... to repeat .... it's just a preference. It works well and I don't see a reason to change it. Feel free to do it differently in your group.

 

[Oofta]

So a question. In, say DW, the GM(?) has moves. Soft moves and hard moves. Let's say the GM does a hard move "Rocks fall and everyone dies." What happens? How does the group decide what qualifies as a legitimate move?

Edit: or anyone else of course.

 

[clearstream]

And these boards are RIFE with people who flat out state that it is impossible to run a game, or that some vast swath of the typical RPG fare is unachievable, without a central authoritative GM. Don't even pretend this is a one-way street. And we're (if I can speak for any others) not 'dismissive' of classical RPG play either, this is the tradition we are coming from and in which any newer practices are rooted! I have no problem with what Arneson did, and I entirely understand his reasons. I think we generally game in a different climate than Dave did, so our needs are not his, and our game designs differ, that's all.

Can you find some examples? I ask because I honestly cannot recall a post on these boards making that claim.