D&D General D&D's Evolution: Rulings, Rules, and "System Matters"

pemerton

Legend
Seriously what the heck is this- "you now claim to be able to extol to me and others the virtues of Cthulhu Dark and comparable RPGs." It's one thing to misunderstand people; it's truly bizarre that you are actively being a jerk to someone for having the temerity for enjoying a system and praising its elegant rules that you also like!
From my point of view the shoe is rather on the other foot.

From my point of view, it seems that you thought it was good fun to take the piss out of people who like Cthulhu Dark until something happened that made you like it. Now it's a cool thing you're excited about, but those people who liked it before still apparently don't get what's great about it - because they aren't 100% signed onto the Free Kriegsspiel Revolution?

I like Cthulhu Dark. I also like Burning Wheel. I am still looking forward to the chance to GM (MC) Apocalypse World. And I don't especially care for 5e D&D. I don't need to locate my personal preferences in some grand theory of the historical trajectories of RPG design.
 

log in or register to remove this ad

Snarf Zagyg

Notorious Liquefactionist
Supporter
From my point of view the shoe is rather on the other foot.

Thankfully, your point of view is thoroughly incorrect.

But you probably already knew that when you looked back at the quote.

Seriously- what is wrong with you? If this is how you treat someone who agrees with you on something, I'd hate to see what happens if you track down the 10 other people who have played Prince Valiant ... and didn't like it.
 

hawkeyefan

Legend
I don't necessarily disagree, but I also think that if the principle that you are using is, "Be a fan," then you are going to have difficulty being neutral.

For an example of this, try having a rational discussion with a fan of ... oh, anything. :)

That said, I do think that the outcomes aren't that different; my experience with FKR and similar systems seems to indicate that typical free-play heuristics often used in FKR are very similar at times to the principle of being a fan of the characters the players control in the fiction.

Fans certainly can be irrational at times, but not always. I don’t think the principle of “being a fan” as we’re talking about in relation to roleplaying is telling us to be some kind of soccer hooligan.

It’s telling us to be a fan in the same way that we root for John McClane in Die Hard. Yes, we care about the character and we’re pulling for him to save Holly and kill Hans.

But it doesn’t mean we don’t want to see him walk across broken glass and get shot in order to do it.
 

Snarf Zagyg

Notorious Liquefactionist
Supporter
Fans certainly can be irrational at times, but not always. I don’t think the principle of “being a fan” as we’re talking about in relation to roleplaying is telling us to be some kind of soccer hooligan.

It’s telling us to be a fan in the same way that we root for John McClane in Die Hard. Yes, we care about the character and we’re pulling for him to save Holly and kill Hans.

But it doesn’t mean we don’t want to see him walk across broken glass and get shot in order to do it.

Yes, and if you're "pulling for the character," then you're unlikely to be adjudicating in a neutral manner.

Again, I think that the difference in the end is smaller, but ... it is a difference.
 

hawkeyefan

Legend
Yes, and if you're "pulling for the character," then you're unlikely to be adjudicating in a neutral manner.

Again, I think that the difference in the end is smaller, but ... it is a difference.

Oh no I agree in that sense. This is why I’m not so worried about neutrality.

I don’t think that a GM needs to put his fingers on the scale during play to be a fan. Nor do I think that he must guarantee success.

Just the possibility of it. Which is kind of why I see the neutrality angle as overstated.
 

Snarf Zagyg

Notorious Liquefactionist
Supporter
Oh no I agree in that sense. This is why I’m not so worried about neutrality.

I don’t think that a GM needs to put his fingers on the scale during play to be a fan. Nor do I think that he must guarantee success.

Just the possibility of it. Which is kind of why I see the neutrality angle as overstated.

I agree; I think that neutral refereeing is actually more fetishized in games that are rules-heavy in general.
 

Oh no I agree in that sense. This is why I’m not so worried about neutrality.

I don’t think that a GM needs to put his fingers on the scale during play to be a fan. Nor do I think that he must guarantee success.

Just the possibility of it. Which is kind of why I see the neutrality angle as overstated.

I've not read a ton of this thread (I just skimmed some posts working backwards), but I wanted to address this recent line of posts leading up to your last.

So far as I know "be a fan" (in those exact words...its elsewhere aplenty in TTRPGs) of characters began in VB's Apocalypse World. It 100 % isn't about putting a thumb on the scales. In fact, when integrated with the agenda of play and the other principles and best practices, there_can_be_no_question that it is, in fact, not about thumbs and scales.

Here is what it means (directly from the text):

1) Make their lives "not boring" (interesting).

2) The best way to make their lives interesting is by making it consequential. How do you make it consequential (I'm glad you asked)?

3a) Take what they (the players) and the game gives you and use what you find interesting about the PCs. Play there (provoke them).

3b) Make the world respond hard to their actions. When they (the PCs) make waves, let them topple an already unstable situation and make waves right back.





That's it. Be curious, be interested, and be interesting. Nothing more. No thumbs on scales either way.

What it really means is "don't make play thematically/premise-absent" and your table time should be spent on conflicts that matter to the protagonists and the participants at the table. Play there. Don't spend table time on conflict-neutral stuff or Setting Solitaire etc. Its "thumb on the scales of table time on provocative and consequential (interesting and conflict-charged)." That is how a GM is a fan of the PCs (not in terms of story outcomes by in framing and of type/kind of obstacles and post action/conflict resolution evolution of fiction).

I doubt you feel like I've had my thumb on the scales for the PCs you've played in my games!
 

pemerton

Legend
So the idea of a neutral GM comes up a lot, and it’s one that always sticks out to me. I’ve very rarely felt it was all that necessary nor all that common.

<snip>

I ask because in kriegspiel games, there were opposing participants, so a neutral ref makes sense. But carrying over that idea to RPGs seems…less direct? Less one for one or like for like? Not sure what word I’m looking for here, but I hope I’m being clear.
That’s a good summary, and one I can largely get behind. It’s kind of about neutrality to the outcome which is something I tend to want.

<snip>

Would you expect this idea of neutrality to be extended beyond just the NPC/PC axis you’ve cited to incorporate things like pacing or drama and the like?

<snip>

being a fan of the PCs as it’s typically cited in principles of play doesn’t mean you’re going to rule in their favor. It’s more about caring about what happens to them. Being interested in what they do and what happens to them.
Which is kind of why I see the neutrality angle as overstated.
I think the notion of neutrality is actually pretty fundamental in analyses of the "GM" role in RPGing. I don't know how common it has been historically, though I would guess that it was more common (at least in proportionate terms) 40 years ago than today.

But conceptually it's been pretty fundamental to understandings of RPGing. And I think it's legacy is felt in many ways even when the reasons underpinning it have been left behind.

I'm not sure I can summarise all the ways in which neutral refereeing can and should manifest itself in those RPGs where it matters. But here are some of the key ones:

* The setting/situation/scenario is established, and set-in-stone, prior to play;

* Action resolution is (ideally, and hopefully in actuality also) a "model" or reflection of how things would really unfold were these events really happening;

* The influence of the players' desires on action resolution is fully exhausted once the PC's action has been declared (and hence can be disregarded by the referee, provided the action declaration has been properly interpreted);

* The influence of the players' desires on setting and situation design does not extend beyond informally telling the referee what sort of stuff might be fun (and for the truly austere even that might be stretching things, because it risks the players recognising the influence of their expressed desires on the fiction as they engage that fiction via their PCs).​

There are well-known adventure modules that, as presented, speak to this sort of neutral refereeing: KotB, Hidden Shrine of Tomachan, Tomb of Horrors, White Plume Mountain, etc.

Different sorts of departures from neutrality produce different sorts of RPGing experiences which I think are broadly recognisable across the spectrum of the hobby. Eg non-neutral establishing of the scenario during play is part of scene-framing play (engage the players via the hooks on their PCs), and PbtA-ish "fiction first" play (make their lives interesting!), and "storytelling" play (use control over secret backstory to make sure the important scenes come online). A really early statement of this sort of non-neutrality - which contradicts some of the other statements in the rulebooks - is found in Classic Traveller Book 3 (1977, p 19): "The referee is always free to impose encounters to further the cause of the adventure being played; in many cases, he actually has a responsibility to do so." That's not neutral!

Non-neutral action resolution processes abandon "objective" DCs (eg Apocalypse World and Dungeon World, which have no difficulties; HeroQuest revised, where difficulties are set via a pacing-based feedback loop) or various sorts of "fiat" resolution (eg Prince Valiant storyteller certificates). Or they allow factors like commitment, morale, relationship to victim, etc all factor into the resolution process (Prince Valiant, HeroWars/Queset and The Riddle of Steel all have this). GM decides based on what makes for a good story (ie the White Wolf "golden rule") is also a version of non-neutral action resolution procedures.

Action resolution where the influence of player desires extends beyond the declaration phase include all sorts of fate point systems (where these can be spent down the track), plus BW's intent-and-task resolution (narration of failures should focus on intent), or some PbtA moves (where eg the player gets to ask certain questions).

The influence of player desire extending in formal ways into setting and situation design can be scene in the AD&D OA Yakuza contact rules, or the Classic Traveller Streetwise rules, or BW's Circles rules. A more subtle, perhaps borderline, case is found in Classic Traveller Book 3 (1977, p 8): "the referee should always feel free to impose worlds which have been deliberately (rather than randomly) generated. Often such planets will be devised specifically to reward or torment players." That's not very neutral either.

When you look at how often discussions about these various departures from neutrality seem to misfire, or become very heated very quickly around what is really RPGing, I think you are seeing the legacy of the neutrality ideal, itself inherited from wargaming.
 

Aldarc

Legend
I suspect that while AW was based on Baker's wife preference, Baker's own frame of reference colored how he percieved and addressed that need. My observation has been that the way 'play to find out what happens' is understood as a result of procedural narrative generation and interpretation, conflicts heavily with the authorial spirit freeform traditionally employs (where the 'what happens' you're discovering comes from the other players, and mechanics exist, if at all, to resolve uncertainty and conflict not drive the story- thats on the players.)
Based on past conversation, I suspect our respective biases regards PbtA will not produce a fruitful conversation.

I will point out that Meguey Baker was the co-designer I alluded to in regards to Apocalpyse World, so it is not as if she was somehow voiceless or her own needs for freeform RP were solely understood in terms of Vincent Baker's own preferences in this design process.
 

The-Magic-Sword

Small Ball Archmage
Based on past conversation, I suspect our respective biases regards PbtA will not produce a fruitful conversation.

I will point out that Meguey Baker was the co-designer I alluded to in regards to Apocalpyse World, so it is not as if she was somehow voiceless or her own needs for freeform RP were solely understood in terms of Vincent Baker's own preferences in this design process.
I wasn't aware of that, though it doesn't materially change my commentary of how the act of translation affected it.
 

Remove ads

Top