D&D General How much control do DMs need?

[loverdrive]

By "working from a roster," do you mean like...having the same antagonists show up repeatedly for rematches? That seems like such an odd way to play D&D of any edition.

In russian-speaking wargaming community we call it "roster", but now I'm not entirely sure if it's the correct word. I recall some app calling these "army lists"? Idk.

Basically, the way I see this imaginary game, there would be a list of various threats, monsters, bandits, traps, automated sentry guns, whatever, each with a price tag attached, and the GM would build a "roster" up to a predefined budget. So, one more sniper means like ten less goblins or somethin

I'd prefer it, along with the statblocks, to be open information that can be verified at any time, but I don't think such details are that important.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

In all the quotes the concern is about forcing the GM to balance things.

And yet we all know the game they--and you--are talking about is 4e.

Which doesn't do that. But still gets held to account as if it did "force the GM to balance things."

 

[Crimson Longinus]

And yet we all know the game they--and you--are talking about is 4e.

Oh? It is? I wasn't; I was talking about the general concept.

Which doesn't do that. But still gets held to account as if it did "force the GM to balance things."

@pemerton seems to think it does. I don't really remember, we certainly didn't play it that way.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

Oh? It is? I wasn't; I was talking about the general concept.

Do you have an example game that does this, then?

@pemerton seems to think it does. I don't really remember, we certainly didn't play it that way.

I suspect not, but best to let others speak for themselves.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

Do you have an example game that does this, then?

No, this was sparked by @loverdrive's suggestion.

 

[Oofta]

Exactly. Absolute power that is never used because doing so would have deleterious consequences is not absolute power. It is conditional power--by definition.

If the power is going to be conditional either way, why not make those conditions knowable? Why not test those conditions, so we can shape them so that they work for us, rather than against us?

As I said much, much earlier in the thread: much, perhaps most of what is permitted by truly absolute GM latitude is merely the latitude to do things that are deleterious to the game. Things everyone, even stridently pro-Rule Zero folks, agree are deleterious to the game. Things everyone agrees the GM should not do, even though they could, because it just...wouldn't make a good game. If we all agree that such things are a problem, what is the point? Why bother with absolute GM latitude, when you could instead accept prodigious (but not absolute) GM latitude, cutting out the parts we agree are Seriously Bad Don't Do That? Because you totally can. You can design rules and limitations that don't prevent all possible bad GM behavior, but which, if followed, do prevent rather a lot of it. Hence my examples of things like needing to give honest answers in Dungeon World, or the emphasis on "be a fan of the characters" etc.

Absolute latitude isn't needed. The only things it definitely enables that aren't enabled by prudently (and slightly) limited GM latitude are bad for the game. So why insist on it, when one will then instantly turn around and apply those very limits to oneself? Again: isn't it better for these limits to be known, public, testable, questionable, rather than hidden away, unspoken, unchanging, unquestionable?


Then I don't understand why it's such a horrible problem to have a system which clearly and consistently answers such questions. Nothing about "you can use this to make balanced encounters" requires that players be incapable of running, heedless, headlong into danger. Far from it! You'll know (as DM, I mean) exactly the kind of danger they're running toward. The Fourthcore movement (which, IIRC, is sadly defunct now) was built around the idea of never having the kid gloves on, of a world that is genuinely dangerous and the players better bring their A game because the system sure as hell won't coddle them--they'll lose and they'll deserve it, because they did "rush in blindly," because they failed to plan or to "bravely run away," because they didn't have a good plan nor the ability to adapt and improvise.

When I watch a movie or TV show I don't want to think about how the show is made. I don't even want to see "the making of shows". When reading a novel, I don't want to analyze the writing techniques. I just want to be entertained and immersed in the story.

It's the same when playing a game. If there's some kind of official constraint on the DM, I'm always going to think about how many points they've spent (or whatever the currency of the game is) and doing meta-analysis. It will lessen the immersion for me, take me out of my character, make whatever we're playing slide along the scale from "let's play pretend" to "let's play a board game" towards the board game end of the scale.

 

[gorice]

I have actually played a bit with premade 'orders of battle' for enemy factions, e.g. the Goblin King has x goblins, y ogres and z wolf riders. I'm not sure that it makes a big difference if the players aren't aware of it, but I probably need to test more.

 

[Oofta]

It's always funny trying to have these conversations. I don't care what type of game you play, I can only do my best to explain my preferences, why I like what I like, what people I actually game with say they enjoy.

Meanwhile, pointing out that for some people other styles of game are better than the base assumptions of D&D and the traditional role of the DM I get "NOBODY SAYS THAT!!!!" Yet we've just had a couple of pages on how the GM needs constraints and that it makes it a better game. It's not that the DM is power hungry and abusive. It's just that the DM having official constraints on them prevents them from being power hungry and abusive. Not the same thing at all!

Either you trust the DM to run your game or you don't. I choose to trust the DM until proven otherwise. Even if I'm proven otherwise I'll chat with the DM and see if I can get them to see what the issue is (I've done this a couple of times with new DMs). If I can't resolve the issue then I doubt any amount of rules or constraints will fix the issue, they'll just look at it as a challenge to see how they can work around them. Because D&D is built around the idea and the DMG repeatedly states that the DM is just one player of the game with a different role. The game is about everyone at the table having fun. It's worked just fine for me for half a century.

If something else works better for you great. Just don't say that constraints are somehow inherently better or dismiss the opinions people who don't like knowing that the DM is constrained by the rules.

 

[Swarmkeeper]

Okay. Question: Why would a party either (a) utterly blindly or (b) knowingly and willingly go into places where they know they're either wasting their time because there's nothing worth doing, or risking instant death because they're going to be in way over their heads?

(c) the party is exploring the world and might discover some places that are very dangerous and will need to be revisited later (if at all)?

Hex crawls and West Marches type campaigns, I think, are good examples.

Second question: Why does everyone always assume that the existence of a system that tells you whether a particular fight is likely to be dangerous, typical, or cakewalk automatically means that the only use for that system is absolutely perfect-lockstep encounters? Seriously. It's like presuming that, because you have a more accurate measuring stick, everything must meet at right angles now. The two are entirely orthogonal. In fact...

Everyone? Always? I'd rather not go there (not that I really even get the question... but that's probably on me).

 

[Swarmkeeper]

Of course both can be fun... BUT... there's no need to depict one as "living, breathing" and somehow more real and the other as somehow being more artificial, gamey, and fake. Because the real point, Swarmkeeper, is the tinge of BadWrongFun that I hear when people frame these two playstyles in this manner. Capisce?

I think that maybe cuts both ways when you infer too deeply what people are trying to say. We can leave it at that. Grazie mille.