A GMing telling the players about the gameworld is not like real life

[Ovinomancer]

I did not mean to imply anything negative, perhaps I should have used an emoji. I too have to clear it up with the wife beforehand given that we host 90% of the games.

Clearly, my tongue-in-cheek reply also failed to be properly presented.

 

[hawkeyefan]

With respect, this is a misapprehension on your part. I wasn't taking issue with phrasing. I don't care about terminology. I'm taking issue with a claim about the features of a certain GMing technique.

All right. As someone who had not been involved in the conversation beyond watching along, it seemed to me that you assumed the claim you are arguing against based on the terminology used. I don’t think Bedrock was making the claim you are insisting he made. So in that sense, I do feel it was a matter of terminology.

 

[hawkeyefan]

It was not the OP I had issue with. I thought the OP explained his position quite well.

I agree. I had no problem with his stance or how he phrased it. I do think that others later in the thread have certainly used Mother May I in a more derogatory way. For me though, such instances are not as frequent as may be thought, given how much of the conversation has been devoted to it.

 

[hawkeyefan]

I think you and [MENTION=42582]pemerton[/MENTION] made your points clear, so both your "sides" had spotlight here.

Having said that, I believe that a shift in approach in mainstream rpg is needed. The issue of where realism comes from is real and palpable at the tables I sit to play. Dramatic, sometimes.

I remark this also referring to what [MENTION=23751]Maxperson[/MENTION] said: Show me a rule and I will allow my players to do it.

I think this shift is happening. It appears to be a slow process, but I think that’s the way things are moving. We see that in 5E with things like Bonds and Flaws and the Inspiration mechanic. This is a small move toward more narrative techniques, but it’s there.

And I think that the hackability of 5E lends itself to other modifications that are more narratively based. It’d be pretty easy to come up with a rule for gear in 5E that’s similar to how Dungeon World or Blades in the Dark handles gear.

I think that when we talk about mainstream RPGs, D&D is the big one, and I don’t think we’ll see significant changes to their tules for a while. But I do think that the way they’ve designed the game and their support structure for it does lend itself to a shift in techniques and styles. And that’s generally a good thing for the industry. Those ideas that are pushing the accepted methods will therefore reach more people, and with time they won’t seem so radical as much as they’ll seem like just another way of doing things.

 

[Ovinomancer]

I think this shift is happening. It appears to be a slow process, but I think that’s the way things are moving. We see that in 5E with things like Bonds and Flaws and the Inspiration mechanic. This is a small move toward more narrative techniques, but it’s there.

And I think that the hackability of 5E lends itself to other modifications that are more narratively based. It’d be pretty easy to come up with a rule for gear in 5E that’s similar to how Dungeon World or Blades in the Dark handles gear.

I think that when we talk about mainstream RPGs, D&D is the big one, and I don’t think we’ll see significant changes to their tules for a while. But I do think that the way they’ve designed the game and their support structure for it does lend itself to a shift in techniques and styles. And that’s generally a good thing for the industry. Those ideas that are pushing the accepted methods will therefore reach more people, and with time they won’t seem so radical as much as they’ll seem like just another way of doing things.

4e was very hackable in this regard. It also was, largely, difficult to approach because it tried to be so malleable. Actually, I'd say it was schizophrenic, because you could play it traditionally (for D&D) by ignoring some things or you could play it much more narratively by ignoring other things. If you actually tried to use it as presented, especially in the first trilogy, it was an unclear mess in many places.

5e did bolt on a few narrative things, but their use, as written, is still gated by the DM, which is why you see so many threads about how bad/useless/hard to use inspiration is. 5e largely moved back towards being more GM-centered, not less. As someone who's trying to see where they can put a few more narrative touches into an ongoing 5e game, I'm realizing that it's a hard fit for a lot of things, and I'm having to overcome player inertia in a lot of places. I've introduced inspiration as something players can claim at any time by just referencing a TBIF (once per trait per session) in relation to the action. 4 sessions in and it's been used once, when I prompted it. Sigh. But, oddly, these guys do GREAT in Blades.

 

[Bedrockgames]

I think this shift is happening. It appears to be a slow process, but I think that’s the way things are moving. We see that in 5E with things like Bonds and Flaws and the Inspiration mechanic. This is a small move toward more narrative techniques, but it’s there.

And I think that the hackability of 5E lends itself to other modifications that are more narratively based. It’d be pretty easy to come up with a rule for gear in 5E that’s similar to how Dungeon World or Blades in the Dark handles gear.

I think that when we talk about mainstream RPGs, D&D is the big one, and I don’t think we’ll see significant changes to their tules for a while. But I do think that the way they’ve designed the game and their support structure for it does lend itself to a shift in techniques and styles. And that’s generally a good thing for the industry. Those ideas that are pushing the accepted methods will therefore reach more people, and with time they won’t seem so radical as much as they’ll seem like just another way of doing things.

I think what you are seeing with D&D is what you've often seen, not a shift in one direction, but a sprinkling of many different things that are presently in the Zeitgeist of gaming. If there are significant number of people who want narrative mechanics, you will have some element of that. If there are people who want stuff present in the OSR, you will have some of that. I don't think either one represents a move toward the OSR or toward Narrative design, it is just arises out of a basic fact that D&D has to appeal to as many people as possible and they really can't ignore any significant trends....but it will always be a game that contains traces of those trends, rather than a hard push toward any of them (unless something like OSR or narrative design because so mainstream, it has to be an essential part of the game for it to be viable). Essentially I think D&D is going to respond to the designer's perception of the market (unless some crazy rich person buys the IP and decides to make it into their perfect version of the game).

 

[chaochou]

If you are truly curious about playstyle differences, I suggest checking out forums where immersion, plausibility and GM decides are the norm.

But why would people such as myself or [MENTION=42582]pemerton[/MENTION], who spent a couple of decades playing that way with countless different people, need to do that? We don’t call it Mother May I in ignorance, but from long-standing actual play experience. How many player led games have you run? For how many years?

 

[Bedrockgames]

But why would people such as myself or [MENTION=42582]pemerton[/MENTION], who spent a couple of decades playing that way with countless different people, need to do that? We don’t call it Mother May I in ignorance, but from long-standing actual play experience. How many player led games have you run? For how many years?

We could trade blows over experience all day. I've been running games as well since the late 80s. I have run games in a number of styles. I don't run player led games. I am just not into them. I don't see how that would mean I have to accept your terminology. I am aware of such games and I have played in them (and I wouldn't refuse to play if one of my friends wanted to run one). But I do run lots of games where the GM decides. And I have made use of other techniques like say yes or roll the dice. I still think calling the GM decides 'Mother May I', is both pejorative and has the exact kind of effect I was talking about with dissociated mechanics. I am not denying your experience. I am not saying you should play the way I do, or that your style is bad. I am just saying, I have run games where I decide if something is at the tea house (and I've been in games where the GM does that sort of thing) and it doesn't feel like mother may I at all to me. And again, it is more than just the terminology. There is a tone in this discussion where one side is completely dismissing our style of play and aggressively critiquing it. whereas I think most folks on my side are saying if you like 'say yes and roll' go for it. Or 'if you like player led games' go for it. We just don't see that as the ultimate answer to everything. We think those options are one among many tools (and a lot of us tend to lean more on tools like the GM decides).

 

[Ovinomancer]

But why would people such as myself or [MENTION=42582]pemerton[/MENTION], who spent a couple of decades playing that way with countless different people, need to do that? We don’t call it Mother May I in ignorance, but from long-standing actual play experience. How many player led games have you run? For how many years?

This is a very valid point. I don't think anyone arguing for more player-centric authority is unaware of how, exactly, DM-center authority works or has little experience with it. The other proposition, that most people have experience with more player-centric authority games, is not likely. This is because D&D and games that follow it's design leads are almost all DM-centric and are the 800-lb gorilla in the room. If you've played any RPG, it's most likely a DM-centric one.

So, yeah, that will almost always cut only one direction.

 

[Sadras]

Having said that, I believe that a shift in approach in mainstream rpg is needed. The issue of where realism comes from is real and palpable at the tables I sit to play. Dramatic, sometimes.

Like @Bedrockgames said D&D, and in particularly 5e, has made attempts to appeal to a wider market. It had to.

They have Rule 0, Personality Characteristics, the Inspiration Mechanic, The Role of Dice which discusses Say Yes/Not and Roll the Dice, Plot Points (which caters for player authoring), Success at a Cost, Degrees of Failure, and even Multiple Checks (sadly not going to far as to fully adopt the 4e SC, but its kinda there).
I think they have done a stellar job and the shift has already happened.

EDIT: Crap, ninja'd by @hawkeyefan
EDIT2: and Ovinomancer