D&D General How much control do DMs need?

[hawkeyefan]

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".

No, that's not it at all. No one is being that extreme. You follow this up with a request for folks to not be extreme, but here your use of "Perhaps..." means that you're still a bit doubtful.

Just afford the same respect you request below.

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".

Sure. I don't think more control destroys a game unless it goes beyond what the participants expect and hope for. As I said, my preference when I GM D&D is to allow more control by the players where I can. The game I'm playing in, the GM retains more control than I would. But I knew that going in. It's not a problem.

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.

Oh, I consider myself lucky, for sure. I just don't think it's anything like one in a billion.

I think it may depend on what you mean by curating, though. My primary gaming group is made up of friends I've had since I was a kid, and we all played together back then. Some folks have moved away or returned, but the group is mostly the same as it was back then. I consider myself lucky to have lifelong friends like that.

We've never curated members of our group. It's made up of the same primary people and other friends and relatives that they brought in. However, we've curated our play skills and GMing skills through discussion and trial and error. I think that's probably a big factor. There is effort involved by everyone to improve the gaming experience for the whole group. Especially over the last few years as we've really branched out with the kinds of games we play.

So curation of that kind is probably a factor for sure. I think expecting to find a group that works well together all the time without having to put in some effort for it probably can make it seem like a one in a billion chance.

Nor do I think that my newer online play group is all that surprising. There was probably some amount of curation going on in the sense that we all seemed interested in the same kinds of games, and we all got along in our online interactions. But who knew if that would lead to good gaming. But it has.

If you don't want people to think that you believe that referees are bad an unnecessary and only used by people who don't know better perhaps dial back the rhetoric a bit.

There's no rhetoric in that post. There's a gif which I think is an attempt at levity, but gee whiz, you really have to warp that post to read offense into it.

It was a counter to this:

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

Which doesn't seem accurate at all. No one is saying to get rid of GMs.

I get that it works for some. But it’s never worked for me any of the times I’ve tried. The impression I get from the other side if this, those who find FKR impossible on its face, isn’t one of “we tried it and it doesn’t work for us” rather a knee jerk “that’s impossible” and simply repeating it ad nauseam as if it were true. If you haven’t tried it, stop saying it’s impossible. Give it an honest, good faith shot. If you don’t like it, cool.

I don't think anyone finds FKR impossible. It seems quite simple, honestly. Some folks just don't like it.

 

[Aldarc]

A post that directly pokes fun at people who like referees, that basically says "Only ignorant people who don't know any better believe referees are a good thing." is not saying that?

If that's not the intent, fine. Edit the post, delete the gif. Because whether it's the intent it is what you are saying.

It does nothing of the sort, Oofta. It says that people have counterfactual experiences about GMing authority. It says nothing bad about alternative preferences. You are reading WAY TOO MUCH into WAY TOO LITTLE.

I don't see any other way to take it.

Have you tried reading it "literally" or with an ounce of good faith yet? Or did you jump the gun and assume the worst at the outset?

 

[Manbearcat]

Obviously some games aren't designed to have an overall referee. Nobody has said otherwise. What people have said is that the role of the referee rotates in some games. In my experience in committees is that someone eventually ends being the referee anyway if anything is to be accomplished.

I don't understand how what you're saying here connects with what @soviet said that you took offense to (or my encapsulation of what soviet said)? Nor do I understand how these three sentences explain the offense that you appear to be taking over what soviet said (assuming that is what your meaning to do with the above)?

Soviet's post wasn't about anything you've written above. Soviet's post didn't put words in anyone's mouth (he didn't say "someone has said otherwise").

I assume your last statement outlining your experience in committees and someone emerging as "the referee" of those committees is explaining your offense to the slight that you feel soviet has put out there against you?

I'm not gaslighting you. I seriously don't understand how these dots connect. I don't understand what is happening here? Can you express the slight that you feel soviet has put forth and connect your last sentence to it?

 

[soviet]

I don't see any other way to take it.

OK, look, in the interest of engaging in good faith, let me go through it.

My post was in response to overgeeked's statement 'Well, that's very clearly a few posters' position, that referees are somehow inherently bad and entirely unnecessary' and general assertions that this sort of gaming doesn't work or is like running things by committee.

I said '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.'

You can see that this is in opposition to overgeeked's statement. I am saying that the 'no rule zero' position is not being advocated by players who dislike GMs, but GMs themselves who find it more fun to GM with less control.

Why would people who are GMs find GMs bad and unnecessary? Answer: they wouldn't. I don't.

mind-blown.gif

 

[Manbearcat]

OK, look, in the interest of engaging in good faith, let me go through it.

My post was in response to overgeeked's statement 'Well, that's very clearly a few posters' position, that referees are somehow inherently bad and entirely unnecessary' and general assertions that this sort of gaming doesn't work or is like running things by committee.

I said '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.'

You can see that this is in opposition to overgeeked's statement. I am saying that the 'no rule zero' position is not being advocated by players who dislike GMs, but GMs themselves who find it more fun to GM with less control.

Why would people who are GMs find GMs bad and unnecessary? Answer: they wouldn't. I don't.

mind-blown.gif

Ok, now I'm starting to understand. I was just working backwards and skimming posts so none of this made sense. So the context that I was missing is someone made a few multi-faceted fabrications or inferences (unclear which) and we're just supposed to run with it?

Here are things that aren't true:

* Running Apocalypse World (and the like) is akin to running things by committee (I can't even imagine someone expressing that...its so far from reality that I just...I just...I just can't)."

* People who enjoy GMing AW (etc) either (a) hate GMing or (b) feel like games that feature more GM control than AW (etc) don't work?

None of this is true.

None of this follows.

 

[Grendel_Khan]

I don't see any other way to take it.

Do you think you might be looking to be offended or attacked? Because it seems pretty obvious that that's not what was happening.

You're also setting up a false dichotomy here, as though people either love the idea of a full-GM-authority referee or want nothing but flattened, zero-GM-authority collaboration, in all cases, regardless of game, table, etc.

You have to know that's not true, right? This perceived slight in your direction only makes sense if you think any discussion of reduced GM authority is an assault on your preferred mode of play. But that's not the case.

 

[Oofta]

@soviet, et al I think this conversation is going around in rhetorical circles. You read something into a post I don't see, I read something into a post you say you didn't intend. A problem is that you can't just excuse something said by saying "It was just a joke". While your gif didn't rise remotely anywhere near to some of the language and imagery it is sometimes used to excuse, it is used to excuse abhorrent behavior, words and imagery. But saying "it's just a joke" kind of gets my hackles up because of how others have and continue to use it.

But it's also an argument that sees no end in sight. My opinion? I think D&D works best with a DM as the single judge and referee. Obviously the DM should take people's enjoyment of the game and preferences into account and the DMG is chock full of advice instructing people to do that. I run a very player-driven campaign myself, but I still make rulings during the game just to keep the game moving. As DM I control the world, the players control their PCs and, with editorial control from me, their backgrounds. I discuss the handful of rule changes I have with the players, but I still make the final decision. That works for me and is my preference whether I'm DM or running a PC.

Other people may run things differently and it's great if it works. Other games work differently. Ultimately there will always be a referee whether that's the DM, rotating to whoever has the control is another option, decree by vote or decision by whoever is the most stubborn.

I just happen to know what works for me, what has always worked in functional D&D groups that I've been part of. Oh, and throw in that when I'm playing a PC I don't want to think of world-building outside of my PC's history and current actions.

 

[soviet]

@soviet, et al I think this conversation is going around in rhetorical circles. You read something into a post I don't see, I read something into a post you say you didn't intend. A problem is that you can't just excuse something said by saying "It was just a joke". While your gif didn't rise remotely anywhere near to some of the language and imagery it is sometimes used to excuse, it is used to excuse abhorrent behavior, words and imagery. But saying "it's just a joke" kind of gets my hackles up because of how others have and continue to use it.

Wow, I can't believe you are doubling down. I thought you would be apologising.

I don't just say that I 'didn't intend' what you read into my post, I say it isn't there. You have entirely invented your own interpretation that has no bearing at all on what was posted. I also haven't said 'it was just a joke' and I haven't tried to excuse anything. These are just further things you have made up to justify reacting against.

 

[Oofta]

Wow, I can't believe you are doubling down. I thought you would be apologising.

I don't just say that I 'didn't intend' what you read into my post, I say it isn't there. You have entirely invented your own interpretation that has no bearing at all on what was posted. I also haven't said 'it was just a joke' and I haven't tried to excuse anything. These are just further things you have made up to justify reacting against.

I'm done with this conversation, it's going nowwhere. Have a good one.

 

[soviet]

I'm done with this conversation, it's going nowwhere. Have a good one.

OK, you too.