Introducing Complications Without Forcing Players to Play the "Mother May I?" Game

pemerton said:

You seem to think that there is no difference between GM unilaterally decides what happens and GM sets DC within parameters established by clearly stated guidelines.

Maybe your experience is consistent with this; mine is not. The difference is night and day (both as player and as GM).

Click to expand...

But it is strange you don't seem to get so uptight when the DM says yes without rolling only when he says no.

I liken that perspective to the new generation of sensitive youngsters where everybody is special, talented and and...

Well, to reiterate it: in trad games, the GM is the only one with complete (or complete enough) knowledge of the game world. The player doesn't necessarily know if the herb lady has stolen a strand of hair from him last night and he's now under her mental control. He might find out only the moment he tries to go against her will.

Players operate under such general uncertainty. That's why I claimed that players only declare intent. And, yes of course, most of the time intent translates into corresponding action without anyone giving it a second thought.

Sadras said:

But it is strange you don't seem to get so uptight when the DM says yes without rolling only when he says no.

Click to expand...

Why would I get uptight about that? I've never heard of a GM who requires a roll for everything.

But this is also system specific: for instance, in Classic Traveller there is much less "saying 'yes'" than (say) BW: every interstellar jump, for instance, triggers a series of rolls. It's actually closer to DW in that respect.

Sadras said:

I liken that perspective to the new generation of sensitive youngsters where everybody is special, talented and and...

Click to expand...

I can cast slurs on character too: GMs who can only see the game fiction through the lens of their own preferences tend to strike me as slightly self-obsessed control freaks. What do you think?

pemerton said:

Why would I get uptight about that? I've never heard of a GM who requires a roll for everything.

Click to expand...

When a GM says yes, there is no ascribed MMI, there is no judgement on the GM's opinion of the fiction...only when he/she says no then eyebrows get raised. You don't find that strange?

I can cast slurs on character too: GMs who can only see the game fiction through the lens of their own preferences tend to strike me as slightly self-obsessed control freaks. What do you think?

Click to expand...

I was only just likening that perspective from my POV not casting any slurs. Similar to how you liken certain playing styles as reading a book or watching tv.

Aldarc said:

So in sum, you're still engaging in semantics for a pointless pissing contest... bucko.

Edit: My general issue is that the declaration of intent and declaration of action operate in tandem as a standard part of play and parole. Sometimes players (and the GM) will emphasize the action over the intention or the intention over the action, but the general goal is the declaration of the fictional positioning. The player(s) is attempting to communicate to the other table participants about their contribution to the fiction. Clarifying intent or action may help to inform the shared understanding and negotiation of that fiction. But the idea that players only declare intent and not actions or only declare actions but not intent - attempting to somehow atomize this sort of conversation - is absolutely absurd in praxis.

Click to expand...

I get it, you don't care about the difference between declaring action or intent or result.

Even though examples in this thread have already shown why the difference matters I'll say it again: the difference lies in how the declaration is perceived (and received) by others at the table, including the GM. If you don't see this, then fine...but that doesn't mean it's not there to see.

pemerton said:

GMs who can only see the game fiction through the lens of their own preferences tend to strike me as slightly self-obsessed control freaks. What do you think?

Click to expand...

I think you can omit the word ‘slightly’.

pemerton said:

You seem to think that there is no difference between GM unilaterally decides what happens and GM sets DC within parameters established by clearly stated guidelines.

Click to expand...

Not sure how you got that from what I posted... especially since I said it was a difference of degrees, as opposed to the stark line you appear to be trying to argue for (and which [MENTION=6688277]Sadras[/MENTION] in his later post about your non-existent critique of "Say Yes" in play shows the inherent lack of clarity of). You have continually fail to address that even within the most clearly stated guidelines there is still by the systems inability to give an example for everything the room for the GM's own biases, preferences, etc to affect the setting of the DC. Again a system like PbtA stops them a system like 4e doesn't do this to any greater degree than 5e. The biggest determining factor (at least in these two examples) seems to be systems you like vs. those you don't

pemerton said:

Maybe your experience is consistent with this; mine is not. The difference is night and day (both as player and as GM).

Click to expand...

Or maybe you're arguing against something I never said...

[MENTION=29398]Lanefan[/MENTION] and [MENTION=85555]Bedrockgames[/MENTION] , I’ll get a reply up afterwhile on my thoughts on your responses.

Sadras said:

But it is strange you don't seem to get so uptight when the DM says yes without rolling only when he says no.

I liken that perspective to the new generation of sensitive youngsters where everybody is special, talented and and...

Click to expand...

A few thoughts on this:

1) The issue I personally have with the anti-competition social dynamic you’re referring to is a few-fold.

A - Humans stratify their peer groups and greater social arrangements via the establishment of dominance hierarchies. This is done via competition. It is a fundamental part of our evolved psychology and there is strong evidence that it persisted before we came down from the trees 300 k years ago.

B - So even children inherently understand competition and will engage in behaviors that facilitate this peer stratification...no matter what silly social engineering adults attempt.

C - On social engineering via brief removal of competition incentives (everyone gets a trophy)...it’s completely ignorant to believe that thousands and thousands of years of evolved psychology (and the attendant biology) is going to be undone by removing competition incentives in the brief moments where adults are supervising childrens’ play.

2 - Your point above always vexes me when I see it for many reasons:

- In TTRPGs, I don’t perceive the GM role as guardian/parent/overseer.

- In TTRPGs, I don’t perceive the players’ roles as that of children.

- In TTRPGs, I perceive social engineering as a dysfunctional play priority.

- In TTRPGs, peer network stratification via intraparty competition in a team based social game seems like an input to play that is begging for table dysfunction to arise. Even old school Skilled Play (which I engage in regularly) is “team vs obstacle.” That mode is an input that engenders good table results (assuming a referee understands their actual role, their constraints, and doesn’t assume an adversarial, “I’m competing against the players” dysfunctional position.


So sum told, I don’t think the comparison is anywhere near apt.

Manbearcat said:

@Lanefan and @Bedrockgames , I’ll get a reply up afterwhile on my thoughts on your responses.



A few thoughts on this:

1) The issue I personally have with the anti-competition social dynamic you’re referring to is a few-fold.

A - Humans stratify their peer groups and greater social arrangements via the establishment of dominance hierarchies. This is done via competition. It is a fundamental part of our evolved psychology and there is strong evidence that it persisted before we came down from the trees 300 k years ago.

B - So even children inherently understand competition and will engage in behaviors that facilitate this peer stratification...no matter what silly social engineering adults attempt.

C - On social engineering via brief removal of competition incentives (everyone gets a trophy)...it’s completely ignorant to believe that thousands and thousands of years of evolved psychology (and the attendant biology) is going to be undone by removing competition incentives in the brief moments where adults are supervising childrens’ play.

2 - Your point above always vexes me when I see it for many reasons:

- In TTRPGs, I don’t perceive the GM role as guardian/parent/overseer.

- In TTRPGs, I don’t perceive the players’ roles as that of children.

- In TTRPGs, I perceive social engineering as a dysfunctional play priority.

- In TTRPGs, peer network stratification via intraparty competition in a team based social game seems like an input to play that is begging for table dysfunction to arise. Even old school Skilled Play (which I engage in regularly) is “team vs obstacle.” That mode is an input that engenders good table results (assuming a referee understands their actual role, their constraints, and doesn’t assume an adversarial, “I’m competing against the players” dysfunctional position.


So sum told, I don’t think the comparison is anywhere near apt.

Click to expand...

Why are you assuming the DM will have a "competing against the players"...dysfunctional position. I haven't seen anything in anyone's post to suggest they run their game as such... I also don't think having a sharp divide in world/setting creation & management responsibilities vs character play responsibilities is necessarily indicative of a parent/overseer vs child relationship and I think that an argument that rests on that assumption isn't telling us anything that is inherent to the play style but only what happens if it's approached from a position of bad DM'ing in said style. As an example if I apply the assumptions in this post to 4e well then suddenly it also becomes a game of MMI...Traveller...same.

EDIT: Also if this is the assumption of the player and GM stance why can't say Yes be used by a GM to promote or "pass" the ideas, actions, etc. he prefers while making players roll for the ones he doesn't? See this is the problem if we start from an assumption of bad faith... it has to be applied to both styles equally.

Manbearcat said:

@Lanefan and @Bedrockgames , I’ll get a reply up afterwhile on my thoughts on your responses.



A few thoughts on this:

1) The issue I personally have with the anti-competition social dynamic you’re referring to is a few-fold.

A - Humans stratify their peer groups and greater social arrangements via the establishment of dominance hierarchies. This is done via competition. It is a fundamental part of our evolved psychology and there is strong evidence that it persisted before we came down from the trees 300 k years ago.

B - So even children inherently understand competition and will engage in behaviors that facilitate this peer stratification...no matter what silly social engineering adults attempt.

C - On social engineering via brief removal of competition incentives (everyone gets a trophy)...it’s completely ignorant to believe that thousands and thousands of years of evolved psychology (and the attendant biology) is going to be undone by removing competition incentives in the brief moments where adults are supervising childrens’ play.

2 - Your point above always vexes me when I see it for many reasons:

- In TTRPGs, I don’t perceive the GM role as guardian/parent/overseer.

- In TTRPGs, I don’t perceive the players’ roles as that of children.

- In TTRPGs, I perceive social engineering as a dysfunctional play priority.

- In TTRPGs, peer network stratification via intraparty competition in a team based social game seems like an input to play that is begging for table dysfunction to arise. Even old school Skilled Play (which I engage in regularly) is “team vs obstacle.” That mode is an input that engenders good table results (assuming a referee understands their actual role, their constraints, and doesn’t assume an adversarial, “I’m competing against the players” dysfunctional position.


So sum told, I don’t think the comparison is anywhere near apt.

Click to expand...

I just have to say, and this may not be your intent, but when I see people throw in sprinklings of scientific fact, social science research and psychology, it often reminds me a speech I saw by Deepak Chopra where he made very dubious claims by putting this stuff into a blender and dishing it out as a kind of expertise dump. My problem with this approach is 1) we really need to take the time to examine each fact claim made and see if the person making the argument is a) honestly using the data, b) accurately reporting the data and c) not leaving out other important studies or opinions in the field if the conversation isn't settled; 2) I am a little wary of anyone who isn't an expert in a field, particularly someone just interested in utilizing this stuff for a game, draws on the material and creates arguments that dazzle and have a moral imperative to them. It is very easy to misapply concepts for disciplines. And many of the examples here seem ripe for mishandling by gamers who might be subconsciously more interested in advocating a play style, or creating an argument that is difficult to wade through. I read something like this, and I honestly have to go over a few times before I think I really have a handle on what is being said. And when it isn't clear where the information is coming from, it is hard to check on it.
[MENTION=6696971]Manbearcat[/MENTION], I do agree that games are not good for social engineering, and that a GM is not like a parent, or Players like children.