D&D General How much control do DMs need?

[Manbearcat]

Do we all agree that there is a difference between "may" and "must?" A difference both conceptually and in what arises downstream of the implication of a governing "may" vs a governing "must."

Because it seems to me an enormous amount of virtual ink can be saved if we can all just affirm that we cannot help but agree with the reality that (a) these two things are inherently quite different from each other and (b) the experiences that arise downstream of inhabiting a space governed by one vs the other is quite different.

When it comes to GM control, "the GM may elect to do thing x, y, z (on and on) at their discretion" vs "the GM must do thing x, y, z (on and on)...full stop...and everyone knows it" creates a very different play experience for all participants at the table, GM and Player alike. I mean...this community knows this. It has a sharp (and biting!) instinct for this. The 4e Edition Wars and the fallout for 5e design were both, in no small part, a reaction to the deep understanding of the significant contrast between "a GM-facing may" vs "a table-facing must."

EDIT - @clearstream , we cross-posted. So to be clear: (i) it looks like you agree with my statements above about rule 0/hacking and (ii) you don't believe that AW Custom Moves are hacking and therefore the person who I was responding to either (a) wasn't responding to your own statements or (b) didn't have your position correct?

 

[EzekielRaiden]

Can you say why you think it matters? What - to you - matters about the distinction?

Are you familiar with the card game "Mao"? It's a game explicitly and intentionally built around only having unwritten (or, if you prefer, unspoken) rules. Some versions even have the rules "text" (allowing "text" to include spoken words): "The only rule you may be told is this one." Some explain the basic premise (to win, you must discard all of your cards), some literally won't say anything at all. Play progresses by players being told (by other experienced players, or the "Chairman" player who enforces penalties) which of their actions broke a rule, but not what the rule was; all rule violations result in needing to draw another card.

Mao can be extremely frustrating to play if you aren't really prepared for it, and is critically dependent on the "Chairman" being genuinely thorough and fully consistent. A "Chairman" who is even mildly inconsistent will make it nearly impossible to actually learn the rules via observation, experimentation, and logic.

I bring this up because Mao shows what it's like when you have "rules" that are inherently tacit. It shapes every consideration of how you play. And it directly leads to most of the issues players are likely to run into. It's also a game where introducing "Rule Zero" as an official rule would completely destroy the ability to play the game at all--and yet "change what the rules are" is an inherent part of making Mao an interesting game. Because if there were only one single set of rules, Mao would be a very quickly solved game, and people would lose interest. Instead, there are many, many variations of Mao, and people may change which variation (or implementation thereof) they use between sessions. Once in a session, however, Rule Zero would be a poison pill, killing the gameplay entirely.

To implement Rule Zero would be to make Mao impossible--because the rules could not be deduced through experimentation and logic. Yet, to entirely deny the ability of players to change the rules of Mao would make the game pointless, because there would be no need--just look up the rules and you're done. Only by being a game where "rules can be changed" is a player behavior, but Rule Zero is completely absent, can you get a Mao that is actually worth playing.

As a secondary question, do you have in mind a definition of rules, principles, and behaviour, that you are using to know that it is the latter? Can you say something about that definition?

Granting that some things can be a little fuzzy, I would consider them as follows.

Rules: Specific instructions for doing particular things. E.g., Discern Realities is a set of "small," focused rules which give specific instructions to the players. Sometimes, collections of such "small" rules can be referred to as "mechanics."

Principles: General concepts or methods to employ. E.g., "draw maps, leave blanks" is intentionally not specific--"maps" and "blanks" refer metaphorically to the whole process of GMs introducing content into the game. Principles can still heavily shape gameplay, but they do so in more qualitative, descriptive terms.

Behavior: Whatever it is players (counting the GM as a player) do. I apologize for it being an almost uselessly broad definition, but "behavior" is almost a primitive concept, something you just have to accept like the definition of "point" in geometry. In theory, "behavior" precedes either of the previous, but it can also be spurred on by one or both too.

Perhaps a useful way to think of it would be that "rules" are like specific codes of behavior (e.g. "thou shalt not bear false witness"), while principles are Aristotelian virtues, which are normative by way of telling you what star to sail toward, not how to steer the ship or tie the knots or tack into the wind. Both have behavior-shaping force, but in supremely different ways.

The issue, then, with the comparison between "rule zero" (whether it is explicit or implicit) and "players of games change the games they play," is that the former presents itself as creating/allowing/establishing a thing, as such creation/allowance/establishment as distinctly second and optional for people playing games. The latter is purely descriptive, "That's a thing people that play games do." And from that distinction, of entrenching vs describing, much of my concern flows.

It would be like someone talking about the rules of group writing, and someone saying "yes but the Lead Author has the special right to change what is actually written, which no one else has and which is not naturally part of writing. This makes Lead Author-driven writing specially flexible." The declaration implies that, without this "writing Rule Zero," no one would have the ability to actually edit the written work...when being able to edit what you're writing before you commit to it (outside of things like words carved on rock!) is simply an inherent behavior of people-who-write.

Chekhov's Gun is a writing rule, summarizable as, "Don't put drama-inducing tools into your story if you aren't going to actually use them to induce drama." "Show don't tell," on the other hand, is a writing Principle, since it isn't anywhere near specific enough to implement in itself, but rather a goal to strive toward in appropriate contexts. (Sometimes, telling is better than showing! But generally it's better to show, and you should use telling only when it is helpful, not as the default state.) "Change what you've written" is a behavior literally everyone who writes engages in.

 

[clearstream]

Do we all agree that there is a difference between "may" and "must?" A difference both conceptually and in what arises downstream of the implication of "may" vs "must."

Because it seems to me an enormous amount of virtual ink can be saved if we can all just affirm that we cannot help but agree with the reality that (a) these two things are inherently quite different from each other and (b) the experiences that arise downstream of inhabiting a space governed by one vs the other is quite different.

When it comes to GM control, "the GM may elect to do thing x, y, z (on and on) at their discretion" vs "the GM must do thing x, y, z (on and on)...full stop...and everyone knows it" creates a very different play experience for all participants at the table, GM and Player alike. I mean...this community knows this. It has a sharp (and biting!) instinct for this. The 4e Edition Wars and the fallout for 5e design were both, in no small part, a reaction to the deep understanding of the significant contrast between "a GM-facing may" vs "a table-facing must."

EDIT - @clearstream , we cross-posted. So to be clear: (i) it looks like you agree with my statements above about rule 0/hacking and (ii) you don't believe that AW Custom Moves are hacking and therefore the person who I was responding to either (a) wasn't responding to your own statements or (b) didn't have your position correct?

Yes, I am in agreement with your last.

I don't know what my posts have to do with AW custom moves so at this point I will put my hand down. Perhaps I wrote something that came across not as I intended (a risk that I am all too acutely aware of!)

 

[Imaro]

As I've posted upthread, and as @loverdrive has posted upthread, DW (like AW) has strict rules that govern when the GM can make a hard move.

One typical function of prep in D&D is to establish hard moves that can be made in ways that don't conform to the DW and AW rules (see eg the example of the sniper upthread; or "I look for X" "Sorry, there's no X here").

That's a very fundamental difference.

Think offscreen too
Just because you’re a fan of the characters doesn’t mean everything happens right in front of them. Sometimes your best move is in the next room, or another part of the dungeon, or even back in town. Make your move elsewhere and show its effects when they come into the spotlight.


@pemerton I think what I'm having trouble with is that the principle above seems to say that player A can trigger a hard move but the GM then has the right to assign that hard move to something either behind the scenes (in his/her notes) or hidden from player knowledge (Some other location, NPC, etc.) and reveal the consequences at some undetermined point in the future. If I'm not grasping this part correctly then please feel free to correct my assumptions here.

Following from the above the players could say trigger a hard move (Deal Damage) while exploring an underground cavern and instead of the hard move taking place in the cavern or having something to do with the cavern the GM could instead decide there is an old enemy of the PC at their homebase town and he has set up a position to snipe him with an arrow (Deal Damage) without the player knowing about it... and this, at least as I understand it would be perfectly legal following DW principles.

To clarify more... I don't think the ""when" it's triggered is the question I'm struggling with but the "how" and "when" it's resolution can happens that I'm struggling with. I think @AbdulAlhazred gets the gist of where I'm coming from.

 

[clearstream]

Are you familiar with the card game "Mao"? It's a game explicitly and intentionally built around only having unwritten (or, if you prefer, unspoken) rules. Some versions even have the rules "text" (allowing "text" to include spoken words): "The only rule you may be told is this one." Some explain the basic premise (to win, you must discard all of your cards), some literally won't say anything at all. Play progresses by players being told (by other experienced players, or the "Chairman" player who enforces penalties) which of their actions broke a rule, but not what the rule was; all rule violations result in needing to draw another card.

Mao can be extremely frustrating to play if you aren't really prepared for it, and is critically dependent on the "Chairman" being genuinely thorough and fully consistent. A "Chairman" who is even mildly inconsistent will make it nearly impossible to actually learn the rules via observation, experimentation, and logic.

I bring this up because Mao shows what it's like when you have "rules" that are inherently tacit. It shapes every consideration of how you play. And it directly leads to most of the issues players are likely to run into. It's also a game where introducing "Rule Zero" as an official rule would completely destroy the ability to play the game at all--and yet "change what the rules are" is an inherent part of making Mao an interesting game. Because if there were only one single set of rules, Mao would be a very quickly solved game, and people would lose interest. Instead, there are many, many variations of Mao, and people may change which variation (or implementation thereof) they use between sessions. Once in a session, however, Rule Zero would be a poison pill, killing the gameplay entirely.

To implement Rule Zero would be to make Mao impossible--because the rules could not be deduced through experimentation and logic. Yet, to entirely deny the ability of players to change the rules of Mao would make the game pointless, because there would be no need--just look up the rules and you're done. Only by being a game where "rules can be changed" is a player behavior, but Rule Zero is completely absent, can you get a Mao that is actually worth playing.

So follow up question, on-surface Mao still works if "change rules" is a rule, and "only GM can change rules" is a separate rule. So again, why does it matter that it is not a rule (rather than mattering that it is not the same rule.)

 

[pemerton]

I said "I believe folk can enter into a prior agreement to a rule, that has a determining effect on their acceptance of that rule at subsequent moments within the governed activity." This claim withstands the above, noting two caveats -

1. When I say "determining effect" I mean that it changes the probability that the given behaviour will be observed.

What is the basis for this empirical claim about probabilities?

In general, it's not true: I give you Bulgaria and the DRC as illustrations (at least where formal rules are concerned).

Is there any evidence that it is true of RPGs where Rule Zero is an express rule?

So that I am saying that prior agreement changes the probability of later acceptance. Thus it forms a testable hypothesis (and one that is tested, repeatedly, in ordinary life.)

Who has done the test for your claim about Rule Zero? Or Rule N? No one that I'm aware of. And to be perfectly blunt I see far more controversy expressed over GM decision-making among D&D players than in other RPGs. I know some will say that this is because more D&D is played; but I think that the character of that controversy also reveals that it is, in fact, the typical role of the GM in resolution in D&D (which bears some connection to typical understandings of "rule zero") that produces it.

Because the GM is taken to have so much responsibility for how things turn out in typical D&D play, and is often afforded so much latitude, GM decisions become subject to criticism and dissent in a way that I simply do not see in RPGs that do not use the D&D-esque authority structure.

As an example, just look at the current "Anticlimactic boss fight" thread, which shapes the whole issue as one of GMing skill and decision-making. Or the current "Curse of Strahd with scared PC" thread, which likewise shapes things the whole way.

Conversely, my experience is that when the players are called upon to direct play, and given some formal or informal tools to do so, GM decision-making comes under less pressure and is less likely to generate controversy at the table.

2. As I have argued elsewhere what's at issue is the neurological state at the moment it's tested, which will have been updated by everything happening in between. For example, if the institution was found, between making the promise and determining acceptance, to be disreputable, that might weaken the effect (i.e. the predictive power).

I don't know how neurological states are relevant. There is nothing being discussed in this thread that couldn't have been analysed by Aristotle, who knew nothing of neurological states.

I also don't know what you mean by "what's at issue"? I thought the topic of discussion was rules, and rules are not mental states.

EDIT: From a later post:

a prior agreement makes it less probable that they will withdraw. Folk will have experienced this in the form of expectation-setting in ordinary life.

This is an empirical claim in both the general case, and the particular case of RPGing. I don't know of any evidence for its truth in the RPGing context, which is what we're discussing here.

 

[Oofta]

The problem is, it is its very exaggeration that makes it difficult to process. Dungeon World uses the Agendas, Principles, lesser-but-still-important guidance,* and explanatory text to guard against exactly this sort of extreme or exaggerated behavior. And, believe it or not, while the standard text does not delve into it, the players have Agendas and Principles too, which are just as aligned to "be a friendly, good-faith player" as the GM ones are to "be a friendly, good-faith GM."

Then come up with a real world example, can a GM pull what most would consider a dick move? I know there has to be a chance for the characters to counteract, but can't the GM make those options to respond difficult to impossible?

Ironically, I feel exactly the opposite here! The thing I love about DW is, I'm free to do as I like--within the rules, which usually are more specific ways of saying "be a good GM," and that specificity is useful.

That's not a rule in most TTRPGs? Because it's spelled out in the D&D DMG as well. It's also quite vague.

There is little to no fear of doing something that could cause a problem, the rules are really flexible and open to extension,** and my ability to create exciting content is nearly unfettered because monsters are a snap to create (there's even super convenient online tools for it) and never need references to outside material. With most versions of D&D, the rules are complex (yes, even 1e!), difficult to create on the fly, likely to reveal unexpected conflicts when using ad hoc solutions, and often unexpectedly constraining. I feel like I have to be totally inventing new, good systems from the ground up with little to no support.

With DW, it's almost always supremely simple; the three basic move templates are "do an existing thing, but more/different/better" (e.g. adding more questions to Discern Realities, dealing damage even when you fail Hack & Slash, doing two roles for Undertake a Perilous Journey), "roll, get to pick from a list: pick more if hit, less if partial, have Problems if you miss" (along the lines of Discern Realities), or "roll, get everything you want on a hit, ugly/hard/incomplete choices if partial, have Problems if you miss" (along the lines of Defy Danger.)

These basic templates, plus things inspired by the Ritual move (lovely, lovely way of encapsulating all "ritual magic" in a neat package) have been more than enough for me to design anything I've needed and be sure that it is, at worst, only slightly more or less powerful than it should be--and I've only had that happen, specifically slightly too powerful, one time in five years of running DW.

*E.g. "you have to do it to do it" = "an action that invokes a move must occur in the fiction for the move to occur" is not, technically, any of the Agendas or Principles, but is a vital part of how moves happen, even GM moves, though GM moves tend to have less overt connection.

**I've hacked in rules for playing beyond maximum level, the equivalent of a "prestige class"--formally, a "compendium class"--with maybe an hour's work, support for intrigue-focused play, and even support for things that go beyond full success. All of it quite easy to do, none of it in conflict with or requiring that I ignore the existing rules, especially not the rules that apply to me as GM.

All I can say is different things work for different people. From what I've read and heard, DW wouldn't work for me, it would feel more like story time than my character interacting as a real person (perhaps with options I don't have) with the world around them. It's just a different mindset, neither is right or wrong.

But you know what? It's great you have a game you enjoy.

 

[clearstream]

The issue, then, with the comparison between "rule zero" (whether it is explicit or implicit) and "players of games change the games they play," is that the former presents itself as creating/allowing/establishing a thing, as such creation/allowance/establishment as distinctly second and optional for people playing games. The latter is purely descriptive, "That's a thing people that play games do." And from that distinction, of entrenching vs describing, much of my concern flows.

Right! And that might be so. My view is that we don't know that it is so. That is to say, there could be a culture whose norms bar changing game rules. So I ask myself, am I prepared to make the claim in the strongest modality (which is "true in all possible worlds".)

Given that we are speaking of behaviour in the domain of games and language, which can (and is) described as arising in virtue of known and unknown rules, I see it as plausible that there is (let's call it neutrally) a disposition toward changing game rules that is not universal. That is down to unwritten rules (possibly very deep rules, admittedly, and likely bound up with principles.) Buttressing that plausibility, unless I suppose that written rules cannot have any impact on in-the-moment acceptance, I feel able to write a rule that if followed changes that disposition, making it (for those who put such a rule in force for themselves) optional.

 

[Aldarc]

* Rule 0 is not about hacking. Rule 0 is about discretionary GM Rulings, in-situ, historically unilateral, to move the game forward in some GM-desired direction. At GM discretion, a given ruling may reference input from system and/or players.

Part of the problem with Rule 0, IMHO, is that Rule 0 is about a lot of things that get thrown together into a nebulous lump.

Rule 0 in 3e D&D stated that the player should ask the DM about what rules they use. Rule 0 here doesn't necessarily give the DM authority to hack the game; however, it does presuppose that the DM may use house rules or options that deviate from the official or standard rules. Moreover, in my own reading, the primary motivator for Rule 0 here is for the player(s) to be on the same page as the DM about what rules and character options will be in play at the table.

All I can say is different things work for different people. From what I've read and heard, DW wouldn't work for me, it would feel more like story time than my character interacting as a real person (perhaps with options I don't have) with the world around them. It's just a different mindset, neither is right or wrong.

But you know what? It's great you have a game you enjoy.

Dungeon World may not work for you. No game works for everyone. Not even D&D. However, I encourage you to try Dungeon World. You may find that it plays smoother and far better than how people may talk about it here. That has been my experience with some other games. There are actual plays with Dungeon World that I suspect most people would guess were D&D. I'm sure that I or others could direct you to some good ones, if you were interested.

 

[Oofta]

If the question is "what will happen if the GM deliberately and maliciously breaks the rules", well, there's no clear-defined procedure. Just like there's no procedure for dealing with players who cheat with their dice rolls.

If the question is "what if the GM makes a move they cannot make due to an oversight, a momentary lapse of judgement or miscommunication", the players will ask "and the trigger for this move is...?"

So effectively it's the table's social contract that enforces the rules. That's not really that different from other games. Even in D&D even if the DM can technically do anything they want, if they have a giant hand come out of the wall and smash a random PC into goo with no chance to survive, the players will let the DM know that it wasn't fair play. In our case, by never having that guy DM another game.

I guess the only real point here is that all games are based on what works for the group. Lines of text in a book cannot enforce what goes on at the table, only the people at the table can. It may be more explicit in some games but I'll go back to the intro of the 5E DMG that no one reads "You’re the DM, and you are in charge of the game. That said, your goal isn’t to slaughter the adventurers but to create a campaign world that revolves around their actions and decisions, and to keep your players coming back for more!"