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

pemerton said:

I am guessing this is related to Luke Crane's love for the caller role in Molday Basic. Is that right?

Click to expand...

I did a quick skim, but yes I believe so. The game is very much a call-back to those older games, just with a newer take on things and really integrating all those moving parts like encumbrance, carrying capacity, equipment, light, coinage and the like, into the system.

That seems similar to BW, though not identical.

Click to expand...

I would not be surprised at this.

Ovinomancer said:

To be fair, you broadened the term to include any use of secret backstory

Click to expand...

. . . to resolve declared actions.

pemerton said:

. . . to resolve declared actions.

Click to expand...

Yes. The presense or absense of a secret door does not rise to the level of railroading. In the sense of a Story Now game it does, but in "trad" styles it does not. Your favorite Moldovay Basic, for instance, the GM's notes are not railroading, even when used for action declarations.

Aldarc said:

I don't think though that either of these terms really cover the issue, and also this answer incidentally falls in line with what I said about how some seem to deny that MMI exists as an issue. Calling something "traditional" goes a long way to normalize the phenomenon even if it is problematic.

Click to expand...

There is no problem. As I mentioned earlier, the social contract prevents the DM from having the full control that others are calling "Mother May I." The DM has no ability, barring something in game like mind control, to keep the PC from walking behind the tree as the player wishes, or to go to the local bar for a drink as the player wishes. The player simply does not have to ask permission to do those things, even in a game like D&D.

A DM who does use that authority to do things like that is not only violating the social contract, but also the intent and function of the game which is for everyone to have fun. Only a very few DMs are so horrible at DMing that they would try something like that, and in those very few occasions, it's a problem of personality and not system.

The "problem" is completely fabricated by people trying to disparage a playstyle they don't understand, dislike, or both.

The MMI issue may frequently occur in DM Facing Games, as DM Facing Games enable the issue, but I would not necessarily use "DM Facing Game" to label the issue that Mother May I attempts to describe. So if you gave yourself more than a second of thought, what other terms would you suggest for describing the issue?

Click to expand...

How about Jerk DM? It's not a system problem at all. It's purely a DM issue.

But this also brings up another point that went unaddressed or unnoticed. "Railroading" is a pejorative for a play or GMing style, and yet almost no one voices a problem with using the pejorative term "railroading" to describe a playstyle. Many may even unequivocally claim that "railroading" is a sign of a "bad GM" even if the players at the table perhaps enjoy that playstyle.

Click to expand...

Perhaps because it's a much more common issue than "Mother May I," which is one that is almost entirely fabricated as I mention above. Unlike the fictional "Mother May I" issue, Railroading does happen to remove player choice, and often happens with new DMs who don't know any better. New DMs won't even think to try and stop a PC from moving behind a tree to see what is on the other side or go to the inn for a drink, but they might try to force the party down a storyline, thinking that it's going to be fun for everyone and move the game along.

In Railroading threads I've noted that if you have player buy-in, then it's fine to Railroad them. One of my players recently(a few years ago) started to DM a bit to give me a break. When he first started he came to us and told us that he was still trying to learn things and wasn't that good at improvising yet, so he wanted us to go down his story rather than break off and maybe go somewhere strange like we sometimes do. We all agreed not to go running off to say Candle Keep for information and just stick to his adventure. That kind of Railroad is fine. The rest are not.

Maxperson said:

There is no problem. As I mentioned earlier, the social contract prevents the DM from having the full control that others are calling "Mother May I." The DM has no ability, barring something in game like mind control, to keep the PC from walking behind the tree as the player wishes, or to go to the local bar for a drink as the player wishes. The player simply does not have to ask permission to do those things, even in a game like D&D.

A DM who does use that authority to do things like that is not only violating the social contract, but also the intent and function of the game which is for everyone to have fun. Only a very few DMs are so horrible at DMing that they would try something like that, and in those very few occasions, it's a problem of personality and not system.

The "problem" is completely fabricated by people trying to disparage a playstyle they don't understand, dislike, or both.



How about Jerk DM? It's not a system problem at all. It's purely a DM issue.



Perhaps because it's a much more common issue than "Mother May I," which is one that is almost entirely fabricated as I mention above. Unlike the fictional "Mother May I" issue, Railroading does happen to remove player choice, and often happens with new DMs who don't know any better. New DMs won't even think to try and stop a PC from moving behind a tree to see what is on the other side or go to the inn for a drink, but they might try to force the party down a storyline, thinking that it's going to be fun for everyone and move the game along.

In Railroading threads I've noted that if you have player buy-in, then it's fine to Railroad them. One of my players recently(a few years ago) started to DM a bit to give me a break. When he first started he came to us and told us that he was still trying to learn things and wasn't that good at improvising yet, so he wanted us to go down his story rather than break off and maybe go somewhere strange like we sometimes do. We all agreed not to go running off to say Candle Keep for information and just stick to his adventure. That kind of Railroad is fine. The rest are not.

Click to expand...

All I have to do to counter your argument is start a thread on metagaming. Then we'll see plenty of GMs saying that it's appropriate to deny action declarations because it'sassumed as part of their social contract.

Ovinomancer said:

All I have to do to counter your argument is start a thread on metagaming. Then we'll see plenty of GMs saying that it's appropriate to deny action declarations because it'sassumed as part of their social contract.

Click to expand...

Metagaming is cheating and cheating is also against the social contract.

Maxperson said:

Metagaming is cheating and cheating is also against the social contract.

Click to expand...

That varies so much from group to group through. I don't personally care if a bit of meta gaming works its way into play (for example, players doing things just so the party can stay together and we can have a smooth session). I think most groups only care when meta gaming starts to disrupt play. But it really does seem to vary a lot. I've been in groups that allowed zero meta gaming, and I've been in groups that didn't care at all about it.

Y

pemerton said:

I haven't read or played Torchbearer, but - obviously given my posts - am a big fan of Burning Wheel.

Maybe @Manbearcat or @Numidius can confirm - is this similar to the BW weapon list?

I am guessing this is related to Luke Crane's love for the caller role in Molday Basic. Is that right?

That seems similar to BW, though not identical.

Click to expand...

1) Yup, weapons are similar implementation but relevant differences related to the different zoom of the conflict mechanics.

Unlike Fight! and DoW, the Conflict system is shared with Mouse Guard and very similar to 4e’s SCs (with certain notable differences). All conflicts (from combat to parley to chases to abjures etc) use a unified, abstract framework with effectively HPs for both sides, take actions and contest against each other and the fiction changes until one side has no more HP.

2) That’s exactly right. The Conflict Captain is basically The Caller.

3) Yup, you’ve got Beliefs, Instincts, Wises, Traits, Skills, Abilities, Checks, Goals, Nature, Mentor (Training), Friend, Enemy, Fate points and Persona points, Beginners Luck, and Conditions.

The stuff that looks familiar has similar implementation.

Bedrockgames said:

That varies so much from group to group through. I don't personally care if a bit of meta gaming works its way into play (for example, players doing things just so the party can stay together and we can have a smooth session). I think most groups only care when meta gaming starts to disrupt play. But it really does seem to vary a lot. I've been in groups that allowed zero meta gaming, and I've been in groups that didn't care at all about it.

Click to expand...

Sure, and you can allow players to just pick whatever number they want to roll after they roll the die, too. Metagaming is one of those things that people tolerate or even enjoy to varying degrees, but if the DM doesn't allow it in part or in whole, it's cheating to engage in it.

Aldarc said:

And you have been accused of "railroading" with your approaches. So it's a pejorative, but not one that (many of those same) people are above using. :shrug:

Click to expand...

I haven't seen that mentioned, but what Pemerton describes isn't railroading in my opinion. I think railroading and MMI are similar terms. They have utility to describe functional play. But here it is being used to paint traditional play as mother may I (I realize there is dispute over how to characterize this, but doing so for convenience)---or at least to paint a very, very common playstyle as MMI. That is when the utility is lost. Both terms describe dysfunction. Even linear adventures are not railroads for example. It only becomes a railroad when the GM refuses to let the players go off the path of the linear adventure. If I apply railroad to describe half the hobby, I think I will never really understand why those people do what they do. It is a term that is loaded with a sense of bafflement over the type of play that is occurring. No one wants a railroad and no one wants mother may I. I think the only real way these terms make sense is when they describe failed states of play. Otherwise we should probably stick to the terms people themselves use to describe their playstyle. I just think there is too much partisanship in how people conduct analysis in this hobby when it comes to coining terms.