D&D General How much control do DMs need?

[niklinna]

Edit: And, to be clear, my claim was that players have major incentives (in every edition, not just old-school ones) to investigate before they act. That investigation will, in part, be an effort to learn whether it is worth their time to do something. It may be that they really, really want whatever is in a particular place, but if they know it's full of monstrously powerful undead and an ancient black dragon, they're not going to go there until they are prepared, by whatever means (gaining levels, finding/buying gear, recruiting allies, whatever.) Likewise, a place that has just a mere kobold warren is unlikely to be of interest to someone who can slay dragons; that doesn't mean they have no interest at all in the place, but time and resources are finite. If the kobold warren is a concern, as others have said, buy them off or pay people to clear it up (and thus the cycle of adventuring turns!)

Somewhere in the great beyond a man named Tucker is smirking.

 

[niklinna]

If you would like, I or others could either tell you more about some of these games or point you in the direction of threads, videos, or articles where these are discussed in greater detail. I can share now that my own experience of going from GMing more traditionally-structured games like D&D or CoC to games like Dungeon World/Stonetop or Blades in the Dark was that it demanded a lot of me as a GM in the moment since you don't necessarily have the same sort of prep to fall back on since you are reacting to the PCs from moment to moment and scenario to scenario.

Given my recent experience—having just begun GMing, and with a traditional game—where I'd mess up and forget some vital bit in the prep and have to either retcon or try to wedge something in that fit among the contraditions, I'd consider building out from minimal prep to be a big plus. I can remember something I've come up on my own in dialogue with people much better than something I wrote to myself even a few hours before!

 

[hawkeyefan]

Because it was stated as if I haven't been saying that exactly the same thing time and time again.

What makes me defensive is that I'm told I'm a "bad at games" because I don't agree that there is inherent benefits to controls on a GM or some other aspects that other games employ. I'm defensive because no matter how many times I say "I get that it works for you, but it would make the game less enjoyable for me and here's why" I get continually asked "But why?" or "Well it shouldn't matter, get over it."

I don’t think anyone is asking you why at all. When they explain why they like what they like, which is different than what you like, you get defensive and act as if they’ve attacked your game.

I don’t think that anyone who’s been involved in the conversation doesn’t know what you prefer.

I also don’t think anyone would object to you elaborating on the virtues of DM control in some way. If you offered an example of actual play where it created an interesting situation or enhanced play in some way, that’d be cool. It’d be better than you just continuing to say “I like what I like “ over and over.

 

[hawkeyefan]

One thing I find interesting - and it's not a criticism or saying that PbtA does it wrong - is this statement. It's just contrary to what I want to do with a living world.

For example my previous campaign concluded a few years before the current campaign but was set in a different region. I'm still noodling a bit here and there on what's going on in that region. It's entirely possible, based on the way that previous campaign ended that an invasion of the region the current campaign is in could be invaded. If it did, an invasion from a foreign entity would happen without warning which could be interesting. Would sparring factions join together to fight off a common threat? Would the PCs come home to a smoking ruin of a town because they weren't there when the invasion happened?

It certainly wouldn't have anything to do with the fiction of the current campaign, it has to do with the fiction of the world at large that could have direct and significant impact on the PCs. I ultimately decided not to pursue it and it goes into the dustbin of DM notes that may arise from the dead at some future point.

But to me potentially having fiction that occurs outside of the sphere of influence of the PCs impacting the game, while rare, is part of the fun of having a persistent world. On a smaller scale, there are a few actors that have not had the spotlight for a while but that doesn't mean they don't exist. They can easily recur or have an impact. Probably not a sniper shot to the head because that's not what I've established with my players, but certainly something unexpected that happens because of the ongoing timeline in the player's home base city. I kind of like that freedom.

See now this is interesting. I don’t think that this is something beyond the ability of PbtA games in a general sense. Certainly the GM is meant to think off things off screen and to introduce complications such as this. But how and why the GM does so is different.

In your example, this is based on a previous campaign. That’s something if not unique to at least far more common or likely with trad play.

I would think that this might be interesting if you have players in the new campaign that were also in the old one. Something I do in my 5E GMing has been to bring in these kinds of easter eggs from past campaigns of ours. It adds something to play, I’d say.

 

[soviet]

Vladimir: 'I like what I like, your playstyle doesn't work'
Estragon: 'No it does work, here's how'
Vladimir: 'Stop attacking me'

 

[niklinna]

I can see gameplay in disarming a trap, fiddling with levers and mechanisms, all that, but not so much in looking for one.

And in any case, "hey, this is a chest, and it is trapped, your akaviri danger sense is tingling like crazy" would invite players towards interaction better than staying silent, I think.

Well, I can see @soviet's table assuming that any time you want to open something or interact with an object, you always describe how you are doing it. As they pointed out, prompting for the how is a clear tell that there's likely a trap. But that's another tension—always describing "routine actions" in some detail makes that all take longer, vs. getting to the "good stuff", as it were. But again I can see some gamers relishing that continual moment-by-moment tension, while also recognizing that other gamers wouldn't.

There's plenty of tension in the attempt to disarm, and not so much in just having it spring unsuspected, but it's momentary. Although there can certainly be surprise, and possibly humor, in it. "Haha you remember that time Phineas just opened the chest and took a poison dart right in the crotch!?"

 

[soviet]

Well, I can see @soviet's table assuming that any time you want to open something or interact with an object, you always describe how you are doing it. As they pointed out, prompting for the how is a clear tell that there's likely a trap. But that's another tension—always describing "routine actions" in some detail makes that all take longer, vs. getting to the "good stuff", as it were. But again I can see some gamers relishing that continual moment-by-moment tension, while also recognizing that other gamers wouldn't.

There's plenty of tension in the attempt to disarm, and not so much in just having it spring unsuspected, but it's momentary. Although there can certainly be surprise, and possibly humor, in it. "Haha you remember that time Phineas just opened the chest and took a poison dart right in the crotch!?"

We only switch into that kind of hyperfocus when I ask the 'how' question. I don't ever spring a trap without the how. I do sometimes ask the how without there being a trap, as a bluff, but I don't prolong it for long enough to be annoying. If players switch to hyperfocus mode without my prompt, and I know there's nothing to find, I let the first statement of approach happen and then make it clear it's a false alarm.

 

[Aldarc]

One thing I find interesting - and it's not a criticism or saying that PbtA does it wrong - is this statement. It's just contrary to what I want to do with a living world.

For example my previous campaign concluded a few years before the current campaign but was set in a different region. I'm still noodling a bit here and there on what's going on in that region. It's entirely possible, based on the way that previous campaign ended that an invasion of the region the current campaign is in could be invaded. If it did, an invasion from a foreign entity would happen without warning which could be interesting. Would sparring factions join together to fight off a common threat? Would the PCs come home to a smoking ruin of a town because they weren't there when the invasion happened?

It certainly wouldn't have anything to do with the fiction of the current campaign, it has to do with the fiction of the world at large that could have direct and significant impact on the PCs. I ultimately decided not to pursue it and it goes into the dustbin of DM notes that may arise from the dead at some future point.

But to me potentially having fiction that occurs outside of the sphere of influence of the PCs impacting the game, while rare, is part of the fun of having a persistent world. On a smaller scale, there are a few actors that have not had the spotlight for a while but that doesn't mean they don't exist. They can easily recur or have an impact. Probably not a sniper shot to the head because that's not what I've established with my players, but certainly something unexpected that happens because of the ongoing timeline in the player's home base city. I kind of like that freedom.

Are you familiar with Fronts in Dungeon World? They were a huge influence on Mike Mearls, and I believe that he said at one point that he adopted them from DW for his D&D campaigns. But Fronts are essentially adventure and campaign threats that you set up in advance that could act against the PCs if they choose to ignore them. So the players may engage Front A (Necromancers in the Dungeon) but neglect Front B (Orcs Massing on the Border), so Front B becomes a bigger threat and advances. This is done on the GM side of things in Dungeon World.

Also check out this advice about "Thinking Off-Screen" in Stonetop and tell me if there is anything here that is too radical for you:

Think offscreen, too
When you establish the situation, answer questions, or make moves, think about events off-screen. What are your NPCs and monsters doing? What have they done? What traces did they leave? What have they been up to that becomes evident? What are they doing now that might become relevant later? Weave the answers into what you say.

Think, too, about what the PCs are doing and how it would shape off-screen events. If they make a lot of noise moving through the Great Wood, who hears them coming and how do they react? If they make an alliance with Gordin’s Delve, how do the Hillfolk—who have a beef with the Delvers—respond? If they told the town that they’d be gone for five days and they’re gone for two weeks, who assumes that they’re dead? Who steps up and tries to take charge? Who takes the opportunity to do what they want?

Thinking offscreen helps you portray a rich and mysterious world, because the world will feel larger than the PCs. It helps you punctuate the characters’ lives with
adventure, because off-screen threats and opportunities quickly become things for the PCs to deal with. And it helps you play to find out what happens, because it gets you thinking about consequences and cause/effect on a broader scale.

Moreover, Stonetop also encourages the GM to move the clock forward (cf. "let it breathe" principle) and not feel compelled to follow the PCs' lives from day to day to day.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

What I am saying is that you and others have these insane purity tests for what a roleplaying game is and how it should be ran/played. Then you make broad claims about how other games work / how other GMs run their games to make them look absurd. Then you make comparative claims about flexibility born out of zero experience.

You also seem to think that people like me who have different cognitive processes than you should not be GMs.
I have never made claims that your play is invalid or could not ever work. Your preferences do not determine how things work or function. Yet you continue to condescend to those of us who take different approaches.

Mod Note:

Disagreeing with someone is fine. But opening your post with a phrase like “insane purity tests” is an insult that starts you down the road of being disagreeable. Dial it back some, please.

 

[Oofta]

See now this is interesting. I don’t think that this is something beyond the ability of PbtA games in a general sense. Certainly the GM is meant to think off things off screen and to introduce complications such as this. But how and why the GM does so is different.

The general instruction in the DMG for D&D is that you build a campaign setting, be that a village or a world and then you start populating it. Look at how much space (perhaps too much, definitely in incorrect order) is dedicated to world building in the DMG. It just feels very different from what was described for other games, not good or bad. Just a different approach.

I think it is a bit difficult to grok other games sometimes though simply because people tend to speak in game terms. I'm certain somewhere in the thousand plus post someone may have defined some of the terms. Others? Things like "facing" get tossed around as a commonly known term when it is not really obvious how it applies to a game.

In your example, this is based on a previous campaign. That’s something if not unique to at least far more common or likely with trad play.


I would think that this might be interesting if you have players in the new campaign that were also in the old one. Something I do in my 5E GMing has been to bring in these kinds of easter eggs from past campaigns of ours. It adds something to play, I’d say.

I always run games in the same campaigns. I just had a piece of lore for a magic item pop up from a game a couple decades ago. Unfortunately we've moved way too many times and the only one that recognized it was my wife, but part of the fun is bringing in easter eggs from past campaigns. I want people to know that their actions and choices will have long term impact. We're almost at the end of this campaign and I will certainly carry on the tradition with the next campaign.