D&D General How much control do DMs need?

[AbdulAlhazred]

I must point out that this is not how magic in Blades works.

Whispers aren't D&D wizards, their immediate magical abilities are constrained to talking to ghosts and perceiving the ghost field (which is something everyone can do with Attune action). There are special abilities Tempest and Compel that allow to shoot lightnings and command ghosts respectively. Other than that, arcane is done through rituals and creation of magical trinkets.

Playtest version of Blades used to have an ability that allowed to "cast spells" by spending stress on magnitude table, but it was replaced by Tempest in the release version.

I think basically that's how it worked for us. There were a lot of times when various AAA moves, some setting logic, etc. was used in order to describe an 'effect'. It wasn't ever described in terms of 'casting a spell' that I can recall. Rituals also figured in heavily there, as did variations of spiritual combat. It felt pretty 'magical' a lot of the time, but it wasn't that much like 'D&D magic'. @niklinna also cribbed some abilities from a 3rd-party playbook towards the end and reflavored them a bit to represent some of the supernatural evolution of his character. Obviously our game may have strayed into territory that was a bit outside what the authors of Blades envisaged, but by the end we were Tier 5 and frankly the game gets a bit wonky when you are that powerful. Our characters were almost like name-level D&D characters, lol. Anything that wasn't pretty strong, Skewth could eat it, or Takeo could divide it into many small pieces, or Beaker could blow it up, or Tal Rajan could make an alliance with its worst enemy and have it murderated. lol.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

Hmmmm...this doesn't sound famiiar (though I do remember the example, and Gutboy!), so I'll go have a look and get back to ya.

Yes, shooting into melee is random as the assumption is that the participants are usually moving around too much to be able to get a clear bead on any specific one. (I think the rules assume open-field battles as the default)

There are guidelines as to how much space each character takes up, and each weapon has a listed length (which implies its reach), so there's that to build on if nothing else.

But now you've got me curious; so again, I'll have a look.

Yeah, I mean, honestly, myself included, GMs normally assumed that you moved stuff around in some rational fashion on a map grid/hexes and that the PCs could kinda 'shift around' and we didn't REALLY play as if the PCs in melee were in some sort of weird quantum state. This is probably what everyone THINKS are the actual exact rules, because its how we played, AND Gygax certainly shows us techniques that don't make sense outside of that paradigm in places in the rules (like the thing with grenade-like missiles, if positions in melee aren't certain, why determine the exact landing spot of a grenade!). The real problem is, nobody was allowed to edit Gary's RULES CONTENT, he had editors, but from what I've heard they were told to hands-off on fixing anything like that. I guess the other point of view would be that Gary just intended people to pick and choose and ignore any of the contradictions, though I think its hard to imagine that he wouldn't have wanted to point out which things were distinct options. I favor the theory that he just wasn't concerned and knew people would 'do something' and it would be OK. Gary was nothing if not inconsistent.

 

[hawkeyefan]

Regarding Rule Zero… I don’t even know that it’s explicitly stated as being a thing in 5e. It’s certainly mentioned that the rules are there to serve the game and the DM’s in charge and all of that… but it’s never explicitly stated. Those statements are not clearly defined. They’re more suggestions than anything else. A reminder that you can change things if needed rather than an explicit rule.

It’s interesting to me how it’s perceived as being so explicit yet it doesn’t actually exist.

And then games that offer more clear principles on how to GM are viewed as lacking explicit guidance on how to alter the game when needed.

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.

Yup. The branch of conversation that led to the finger pointing was based on something I said about D&D doesn’t need as much DM control as many are stating as their preferred amount.

@Oofta then responded that there are many folks dismissing anything but cooperative games. I don’t really know what RPG wouldn’t be considered cooperative, but I think he meant those that have strong GM authority. I don’t think anyone’s really being dismissive of DM control so much as being direct about it.

I don’t think any of my comments about my 5e Temple of Elemental Evil game were dismissive. I don’t think anyone is being dismissive of anyone’s game or their preference. I just think many people here prefer more DM control than is necessary.

Look at the recent focus on Rule Zero. This is just another way to take something that no one needs permission to do, and interpret it in a way that gives the DM more authority.

 

[soviet]

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.

I made no such implication. This is all just in your head. My assumption was actually the opposite, that even with rule zero you still have a brief discussion as adults.

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.

The point I was making was that your assumption that non rule zero games involve voting at all is incorrect.

 

[soviet]

My game will be revised to include rule seventeen - the GM may authorise players to consume snacks at any time.

By implication, all you suckers playing different games without a central authority figure have players literally starving to death for lack of proper protocols. Where is your god Vincent (hah) Baker now?

 

[Xamnam]

something that no one needs permission to do

Some of us do. Absent it, I am going to do most that I can to not change or break any written rule.

 

[Aldarc]

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.

Let's say that you were playing in this game as a player. How would you think it apt to decide this matter?

Some of us do. Absent it, I am going to do most that I can to not change or break any written rule.

I would say that it's not like WotC would send the Pinkertons to stop you from doing so, but maybe they would now.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

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?

Doing so is against the rules of Dungeon World. Specifically, this runs afoul of the Agendas, specifically, "Play to find out what happens." You cannot follow that Agenda if you simply unilaterally declare what happens, especially in this case, given this is a fiat "game ends" sort of thing.

That said, perhaps the characters being, or becoming, dead is a part of the premise. If so, you either:
(A) start with this premise, because that's where the action is, so just...get to it and skip the preamble, or
(B) sell the players on the premise after play has begun. If you can't do that, the game is unlikely to be successful in the first place.

As a milder example of this, I had a cool idea for a thing that needed to happen: a character rejoining the party (TL;DR: hiatus player temporarily returning.) This, plus some private discussion with players, led to a cool set piece concept (expedition to a rediscovered lost city.) But as a result, I needed my players to be willing to do that. I was far more worked up about it than they were, humorously, though at the time it was anything but humorous to me. Had my players balked, a different "return to the party" option would need to be used. Because it was a necessity that this player be reintegrated, it's part of the premise, but a premise after game start has to be sold to the players and (per the Principles) needs to follow from the fiction.

 

[hawkeyefan]

Some of us do. Absent it, I am going to do most that I can to not change or break any written rule.

I don't think it's bad to do what you can to not change or break any written rule. But even if Rule Zero didn't exist, there are going to be instances where the rules don't suffice, or where they lead to something absurd. In those instances, what would you do?

 

[clearstream]

Regarding Rule Zero… I don’t even know that it’s explicitly stated as being a thing in 5e. It’s certainly mentioned that the rules are there to serve the game and the DM’s in charge and all of that… but it’s never explicitly stated. Those statements are not clearly defined. They’re more suggestions than anything else. A reminder that you can change things if needed rather than an explicit rule.

For sure. As I called out up-thread (with quotes from the DMG) there is no express rule zero in 5e.

It’s interesting to me how it’s perceived as being so explicit yet it doesn’t actually exist.

I took us to be discussing games that incorporated the written rule. Not specifically or solely 5e.

And then games that offer more clear principles on how to GM are viewed as lacking explicit guidance on how to alter the game when needed.

Tsk. As we discussed above (with quotes from AW) at least some of those games have written guidance about how to alter them.

Look at the recent focus on Rule Zero. This is just another way to take something that no one needs permission to do, and interpret it in a way that gives the DM more authority.

It's really not. As I laid out above.

Rule 1. Users of an RPG can change the rules if they want to.
Rule 2. One participant is authorised to exercise 1. unilaterally.
Rule 3. The GM is that participant.

We're saying that rule 1 is in force unless another rule (like my rule N.) suspends it. Nothing about rule 1. commits us to rule 3. Seeing as this is in agreement with what you are saying, I'm struggling to see why it is still unpalatable?