D&D General Fighting Law and Order

[Micah Sweet]

Personally, I don't see what else the GM's purpose would be. I get most of my fun watching the players do awesome things. Or incredibly stupid things. Sometimes they're the same thing. Merely showing off my world doesn't let the players do those things.

I don't agree. The players can do whatever they want in the world. Putting them in it doesn't prevent them from doing those things. I like seeing them do cool stuff too, but its not the only reason I'm there. If it were, I would feel like I'm the players' employee, and my job is to make sure they're having fun. Rather, I see my role as creating an environment where everyone, myself included,  can have fun. Actually having fun is everybody's responsibility.

Part of my fun is creating a fantasy world and letting the players run roughshod over it, but that doesn't mean I'm there to serve their needs. Instead I create a setting that has all the elements to serve their own needs.

 

[Micah Sweet]

Well, I suggest that your assessment of the game designer's ability and resulting quality of games like BitD is very limited! BitD actually has multiple layers of resource management, nor do things like stress just magically recover, there's a permanent opportunity cost to getting back stress, and the more you need to recover, the higher that cost is. The game is FAR more sophisticated than you seem to imagine.

It's not an easy game to play either! Myself and 3 other players, all with many years of experience played a crew. We survived and became powerful, though pretty much in a "burn bright, burn fast" sense. It required real skills to do that, like optimal play at several levels, all while RPing our characters like crazy. I'm guessing the vast majority of random collections of players would get their crew crushed under the weight of 10 different clocks.

Look at it this way, I long ago graduated from the sort of death maze puzzle play your shilling. Like 40+ years ago. No doubt it can present a good challenge of a certain sort, but we figured out how to run games that are equally challenging but in multiple ways, and incorporate other dimensions of challenge as well.

When you reach this level of play you will see!

That last bit is rather condescending. You're implying that your style of play is more evolved than others, but one day we'll all come around to your point of view.

 

[hawkeyefan]

I think the reasons people are upset about his definition is because it defines very non-railroad methods of play as railroad and it is used in a way almost no one in the hobby uses the term.

Yeah, but so what? People have dropped all kinds of criticisms at all kinds of games in this thread. If someone says something negative about a game I like, I explain why I think they're wrong, or why there are other elements that make up for it. I don't tell them they need to stop saying what they're saying.

Look at what @bloodtide is saying. Is anyone getting nearly as worked up about those views?

Why is there a difference, do you think?

Because there's potentially some truth to what @pemerton is saying. And people don't want to face that, so instead they're trying to simply shut it down.

Just play devil's advocate for a bit... imagine there's something of merit there, that the criticism has at least a modicum of validity. Be harsh on trad gaming, either your own or someone else's. Examine play through that harsher lens and see what it says.

 

[bloodtide]

No one here has described they're players as distracted and indifferent except you. Certainly not the folks who play games that, you know, actively involve the players more often.

Right?

My bigger point is that if a player can just Alter Game Reality on a whim then they don't have to pay attention or even really play the game. They can goof around for six hours, and then when the GM says "oh who will you get through the Door of Doom?" they can just sit back and say "My character Knows a Guy that gave him The Key of Doom" and the player overcomes that challenge in just a second.

Why bother to play a game like football, when right before the end you can just give your team 200 points to auto win every time?

I think you're laying the blame where it doesn't belong. If your players aren't interested in your game, the issue isn't with other games. It's either you or the players.

If I'm not talking about your players, why do you talk about mine?

Well, I suggest that your assessment of the game designer's ability and resulting quality of games like BitD is very limited! BitD actually has multiple layers of resource management, nor do things like stress just magically recover, there's a permanent opportunity cost to getting back stress, and the more you need to recover, the higher that cost is. The game is FAR more sophisticated than you seem to imagine.

I'm sure the game has printed rules, but they don't matter much in game play.

D&D has rules for attacks, damage, hit points and character death......but many, many, many Storetelling Game Styles will by houserule/agreement have no character death in their games. Same way in D&D, if a character has a 'once a day power', they can do the 15 minute day to get around that and use the power four times an hour.

When you reach this level of play you will see!

It's a good thing I don't go by your "made up levels". I guess you can say you are a 1,344 th level game player?

 

[Micah Sweet]

Yeah, but so what? People have dropped all kinds of criticisms at all kinds of games in this thread. If someone says something negative about a game I like, I explain why I think they're wrong, or why there are other elements that make up for it. I don't tell them they need to stop saying what they're saying.

Look at what @bloodtide is saying. Is anyone getting nearly as worked up about those views?

Why is there a difference, do you think?

Because there's potentially some truth to what @pemerton is saying. And people don't want to face that, so instead they're trying to simply shut it down.

Just play devil's advocate for a bit... imagine there's something of merit there, that the criticism has at least a modicum of validity. Be harsh on trad gaming, either your own or someone else's. Examine play through that harsher lens and see what it says.

I don't agree with any truth regarding @pemerton 's definition of railroad, and really wish they would use a different word to describe their feelings, which in and of themselves I have no problem with them expressing. The difference is that @pemerton is actually trying to have a conversation about the style of gaming they prefer, and as far as I can tell @bloodtide is just trying to get folks riled so that they'll argue with them.

 

[Faolyn]

I don't agree. The players can do whatever they want in the world. Putting them in it doesn't prevent them from doing those things. I like seeing them do cool stuff too, but its not the only reason I'm there. If it were, I would feel like I'm the players' employee, and my job is to make sure they're having fun. Rather, I see my role as creating an environment where everyone, myself included,  can have fun. Actually having fun is everybody's responsibility.

Part of my fun is creating a fantasy world and letting the players run roughshod over it, but that doesn't mean I'm there to serve their needs. Instead I create a setting that has all the elements to serve their own needs.

Except... without players, there's no game. There's just a worldbuilding exercise. If they're not having fun, then why would they game?

I try to make sure my players have fun--I consider it my purpose as a GM, not my job--and I've never once felt like their employee or anything else.

 

[Bedrockgames]

Yeah, but so what? People have dropped all kinds of criticisms at all kinds of games in this thread. If someone says something negative about a game I like, I explain why I think they're wrong, or why there are other elements that make up for it. I don't tell them they need to stop saying what they're saying.

I didn't say anyone has to stop saying what they are saying. But this is why there is pushback IMO

Look at what @bloodtide is saying. Is anyone getting nearly as worked up about those views?

I don't agree with anything I've seen Bloodtide say and while I was contemplating a push back post on his views, I didn't have time to sift through his posts to gain mental clarity on them. But to be clear here, I am not a fan of that position either.

Why is there a difference, do you think?

People are tribal in these conversations which is very unfortunate because they will do as you point out: push against someone they disagree who says something that bothers them or seems impolite, but not push against someone on their side for the same thing. I don't think that kind of partisanship is healthy in gaming discussions. Sometimes it is easy to fall into because you are mostly paying attention to just one or two threads in a discussions and you don't always see the posts by people who agree with you (or if you do you stop before getting deeply into the points they are making).

Because there's potentially some truth to what @pemerton is saying. And people don't want to face that, so instead they're trying to simply shut it down.

I don't think it is that. I think, at least for me, it is the rhetorical approach he is taking of going after peoples language. This started with terms like immersion and other common language for things such as sandbox, old school play, etc. And the way it is being used here with railroads feels very similar. Also, I don't think this is an issue of people not wanting to face something. We have all been in this hobby a very long time and we have all been exposed to these arguments in their various forms, seen things play out at the tables, and had time to decide what we like. The problem I tend to have with arguments like the one pemerton is making is the rhetorical angle that reworks the terms so people are almost forced to agree with his style preferences. i just don't think that is a good way to have a discussion about playstyles. I also think the hostility in these threads can be an issue. I have been guilty of that myself and I try to pull back on it, because I do think any playstyle can become bad when taken to extreme, when not adapted properly to a group or when it closes your mind off to other approaches

Just play devil's advocate for a bit... imagine there's something of merit there, that the criticism has at least a modicum of validity. Be harsh on trad gaming, either your own or someone else's. Examine play through that harsher lens and see what it says.

Every critique has some validity. One of the reasons I am always adapting my approach and rethinking how I handle things is because I don't want to slip into habits that take away the agency of the players or aren't offering them real choices. But that doesn't mean that Pemerton's definition of railroad is sound. And a critique built off a faulty definition or assumption is going to be a problem. We can and should critique our own style of play. But I think when its being done simply to destroy a style or convert someone to another style, it is unlikely to yield anything truly beneficial

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

Look at it this way, I long ago graduated from the sort of death maze puzzle play your shilling. Like 40+ years ago. No doubt it can present a good challenge of a certain sort, but we figured out how to run games that are equally challenging but in multiple ways, and incorporate other dimensions of challenge as well.

When you reach this level of play you will see!

Mod Note:

Do you realize how dismissive this is of some of your fellow ENWorlders’ preferred playstyles? That you’re presenting your playstyle as objectively superior as opposed to a subjective preference? That accusing others of “shilling” is rude at best?

I hope you can.

 

[Micah Sweet]

Except... without players, there's no game. There's just a worldbuilding exercise. If they're not having fun, then why would they game?

I try to make sure my players have fun--I consider it my purpose as a GM, not my job--and I've never once felt like their employee or anything else.

You can't make people have fun. Sometimes they're just having a bad day or are distracted and are just not in a good place. It's inevitable, and when it happens it can feel like a failure as a GM if you believe that your purpose is to make sure the players are having fun. All you can really do is try to create an environment where, hopefully, fun can be had by everyone involved, including you. If all you care about is keeping your players happy, then more power to you. That's not all I want. There are all sorts of stuff in gaming that matters more to me than it does to them. If I only cared about their needs, than I wouldn't do those things (since they don't matter to them), and I would have a lot less fun at the table.

 

[bloodtide]

and as far as I can tell @bloodtide is just trying to get folks riled so that they'll argue with them.

I want to have a conversation too.

I don't type all flowery and I type direct. And lots of people react to that.

I don't want to argue, and avoid it.