D&D General How much control do DMs need?

[hawkeyefan]

Same.

In fact, the whole group (around 10 people) have or currently run games save for one who is fixing to run something this summer. And this is the second group I've been in like that, having moved states. And some of the new players we've picked up came from similar gaming backgrounds. So not exactly a rarity.

Yeah, I can understand the need for some level of control from the aspect of game facilitation... someone has to play the antagonists and other characters, and make decisions about what happens in response to player decisions and all that.

But this idea of GM as storyteller in conjunction with discussion of GM control... that would seem to imply a whole other kind of control.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

Yeah, I can understand the need for some level of control from the aspect of game facilitation... someone has to play the antagonists and other characters, and make decisions about what happens in response to player decisions and all that.

But this idea of GM as storyteller in conjunction with discussion of GM control... that would seem to imply a whole other kind of control.

Careful. Go too much further and you might start saying the quiet part out loud.

 

[niklinna]

Careful. Go too much further and you might start saying the quiet part out loud.

 

[soviet]

Most of the people who advocate for less GM control, or who write games like that, are GMs themselves. That's how they know it works.

 

[Lanefan]

Yeah, equating a desire for lesser GM control with a desire for no GM is just mistaken.

Perhaps, but there does come across from some a strong sense of preferring that the authority all rest with the players, and that the GM be more of a non-authoritative rules processor (i.e. the GM acts almost as a "dumb terminal" for rules) and scene-setter. In other words, as someone brilliantly put it upthread, nothing more than a "meat computer".

Absolutely. I think it's just a matter that no one wants to say "When I DM, I want more control than is necessary".

Oh, I'm quite happy to say that.

However, I'm also not out to ruin my own game, as that would kinda defeat the purpose. "More control than is necessary" does not in any sense mean "absolutely all control".

I play or run in three regular games, and all three involve tables full of good storytellers. I don't think it can be one-in-a-billion for it to work out that way for me. It's not a miracle.

I'd say that's quite unusual, and that - unless you or someone else has done a very fine job of curating your player base over the years - you're lucky.

 

[Manbearcat]

Most of the people who advocate for less GM control, or who write games like that, are GMs themselves. That's how they know it works.

Here is the other thing:

"Less unilateral GM control over the trajectory of play does not equal less consequential GM input per unit of play."

I've never contemplated after any GMing experience "...man, I really feel like my net contribution to that session wasn't very consequential." Not once. So much happens in such short intervals of play that, despite player signature being amplified, the GM signature isn't reduced on a per unit of play measure.

 

[soviet]

Maybe. Certain kinds of players have zero interest in being a referee, even if it's a shared responsibility. Some players are not good at being a referee. For some players, having to be a referee even part-time destroys their ability to play the game. Like me, for example. I'm far more interested in immersion than anything else while I play. Having to referee would prevent me from being able to play the way I want. To the point where I'd rather just be the referee or just be a player.

It isn't the same as being a part-time referee. It might feel that way to you, but not to most people who play this way, and perhaps not to most people in general. But no-one is trying to make you play something you don't like.

Well, that's very clearly a few posters' position, that referees are somehow inherently bad and entirely unnecessary.

This is a strawman, I haven't seen anyone say anything even slightly close to this. Can you give me some examples?

But that feeling is also largely because, in my experience, players given the authority to alter the world or narrate outcomes will simply abuse that to engage in petty power fantasy. "A billion gold coins fall from the sky and we're rich forever." "With one swing of my sword I behead the Demon King and we win forever." In my experience, most gamers are terrible storytellers. If given an "I win" button they'll simply smash that until it breaks everything. Worldbuilding, storytelling, obstacles, drama, tension, arcs, etc be damned. Pick anything that makes for a good story and gamers inevitably want the opposite. There are a few decent-to-good storytellers who happen to play RPGs, but they are vanishingly rare. A table full of them? That's a one-in-a-billion occurrence.

Wow, my experience is nothing like this, at least not since school. Get better players would be my advice. Or older players, possibly.

One thing I don't get, how is it these people can't be trusted not to wreck the game with this authority when they're players, but once they put the GM hat on suddenly they are paragons of good judgement?

 

[Snarf Zagyg]

Perhaps, but there does come across from some a strong sense of preferring that the authority all rest with the players, and that the GM be more of a non-authoritative rules processor (i.e. the GM acts almost as a "dumb terminal" for rules) and scene-setter. In other words, as someone brilliantly put it upthread, nothing more than a "meat computer".

Was that @overgeeked ? Love it, practically Burroughs-esque.

Most of the trouble in the world has been caused by folks who can't mind their own business, because they have no business of their own to mind, any more than a smallpox virus has.

 

[Grendel_Khan]

I'd say that's quite unusual, and that - unless you or someone else has done a very fine job of curating your player base over the years - you're lucky.

I play or run in two weekly games, and while not everyone involved is a great storyteller, I'd say most are good at it. It doesn't seem all that rare to me, really—in one-shots that I've played in with people I only know through online communities, it's been roughly the same.

But in the case of my weekly tables, we've been trying out different kinds of games for a while now, with different degrees of shared authority (from GM-only to almost entirely collaborative). I wouldn't say that everyone at those tables wants to GM, or would necessarily be great at it, but we know how to contribute to stories in interesting ways.

And in the case of the one-shots, it's mostly been games that aren't 100 percent trad.

So there's some self-selection there, and some lack of practice, as far as tables comprised mostly of D&D die-hards, for example.

 

[Lanefan]

Here is the other thing:

"Less unilateral GM control over the trajectory of play does not equal less consequential GM input per unit of play."

I've never contemplated after any GMing experience "...man, I really feel like my net contribution to that session wasn't very consequential." Not once. So much happens in such short intervals of play that, despite player signature being amplified, the GM signature isn't reduced on a per unit of play measure.

Within the moment-to-moment run of play, you're mostly right.

I'll say this, though: there have been sessions where afterwards I've said to myself pretty much "...man, I really feel like my net contribution to that session wasn't very consequential.", except in a positive way rather than negative. Usually, those were the sessions where they spent the entire time arguing (or fighting) with each other in character while I just sat back, put my feet up, and occasionally processed rules.

GM control, however, can extend far beyond the moment's run of play to include system choice, houserules, expected (or demanded!) playstyle, fudging, rules enforcement (or not), session scheduling and siting, and lots more.