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

[Bedrockgames]

And you think it's pejorative to call this "Mother may I"? Should we call it "Playing the GM" instead?

Anything more neutral than mother may I. The GM decides seems to work fine. My issue is the terminology and how you project all kinds of things onto people who stare a preference. Maybe try adopting less pejorative language and listening (hearing what people say rather than looking for a new angle of attack). Pemerton I don’t like fighting online at all these days. I have no interest in arguing over stupid game preferences. I am only engaging you this way so I can walk away with a sense of dignity (I don’t think you realize how insulting your posts are coming off).

 

[Bedrockgames]

Regardless of playstyles preferences, I believe that allocation of authority, equity in realism if Gm decides vs Pc check decides etc is something that the next generation of mainstream rpgs should address upfront in their core rules design

It isn't even that binary. One of the problems that arises out of playstyle discussions like this is people start to become hyper aware of these these things (the way people on my side of the fence became hyper aware of dissociated mechanics in the wake of 4E and the Alexanderian article on the topic). I think there is value in articles like the one the Alexandrian wrote and in people exploring some of the reasons behind our reactions to different mechanics. At the same time, if we start to see all games as being being 'dissociated' or 'non-disocciated' based on any amounts of dissociated mechanics, we might start making games that have more dissociated mechanic than they probably should or games that have less than they should, simply because we've put ourselves in one camp. I think a good example of this is the Paladin Mount ability that Pemerton brought up. As posters stake more and more ground in favor of GM narrative authority in contrast to Pemerton's positions, if we think of it as this binary thing, then suddenly posters can start seeing a game with that mechanic as bad because they've gotten it into their head they are on the opposite side of Pemerton. I've seen this happen countless times in these discussion. So by all means, GM authority could be addressed. I would be cautious about overplaying its significance for most gamers. If it is addressed, maybe take a more objective approach than we've seen in this thread?

 

[pemerton]

Anyone who wants to discuss so-called "dissociated mechanics" (good to see no pejorative terms are being used!), I recommend this thread. Coincidentally enough, it was started by [MENTION=85870]innerdude[/MENTION].

 

[Numidius]

It isn't even that binary. One of the problems that arises out of playstyle discussions like this is people start to become hyper aware of these these things (the way people on my side of the fence became hyper aware of dissociated mechanics in the wake of 4E and the Alexanderian article on the topic). I think there is value in articles like the one the Alexandrian wrote and in people exploring some of the reasons behind our reactions to different mechanics. At the same time, if we start to see all games as being being 'dissociated' or 'non-disocciated' based on any amounts of dissociated mechanics, we might start making games that have more dissociated mechanic than they probably should or games that have less than they should, simply because we've put ourselves in one camp. I think a good example of this is the Paladin Mount ability that Pemerton brought up. As posters stake more and more ground in favor of GM narrative authority in contrast to Pemerton's positions, if we think of it as this binary thing, then suddenly posters can start seeing a game with that mechanic as bad because they've gotten it into their head they are on the opposite side of Pemerton. I've seen this happen countless times in these discussion. So by all means, GM authority could be addressed. I would be cautious about overplaying its significance for most gamers. If it is addressed, maybe take a more objective approach than we've seen in this thread?

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.

 

[Bedrockgames]

Anyone who wants to discuss so-called "dissociated mechanics" (good to see no pejorative terms are being used!), I recommend this thread. Coincidentally enough, it was started by [MENTION=85870]innerdude[/MENTION].

I am not defending the choice of terminology there, I agree something less pejorative could have been chosen. I think anyone interested in this topic would do well to check out the Alexandrian's posts on the subject (Justin Alexander's position, I believe, has shifted over the years on this topic). You can find his blog here: https://thealexandrian.net

I brought it up though as an example of how the kind of terminology we are using on the thread, can lead to people making gaming or design decisions that are counter to their actual interests. Again, I think at the time, it got at something that resonated with many people who didn't grok 4E. At the same time, it became this thing where many of us were so against every having dissociated mechanics in our games, we threw the baby out with the bathwater. It was just like, any amount of mechanic that could fit into this category, destroyed the whole game for us. Because we were hyper aware of it. I think the term Mother May I, as it has been used in this thread, can lead to similar problems. No one wants to play mother may I, just like no one wants something dissociated in their game (if they embrace the ideas and meanings behind those uses of the terms). It becomes a lens, and once you use that lens, you miss a lot of other details (details like, while a whole game made up of these mechanics may not be for me, here and there they can actually add a lot of fun to the game for me).

I would also just add, this thread is from nearly ten years ago. And the original article is from ages ago as well. People have changed their views a lot since then I am sure.

 

[Bedrockgames]

I think you and @pemerton 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 @Maxperson said: Show me a rule and I will allow my players to do it.

The problem mainstream RPGs have though, is they need to appeal to you, to Pemerton, to me and to Max Person. They have to get as many people as possible. I am not saying that means they can't address these things. But obviously how they address them is going to matter because they want to attract all the gaming blocks while not pushing any of them away. Less mainstream games have always had the luxury of being able to focus more on stuff like this, because the audience will find them, and they can cater to a more narrow audience.

EDIT: Just to reiterate, the point of my original response to your post was just to say it should be more nuanced and not presented as a binary (I think a game could have a more even mixture rather than lean hard to one side or the other for instance). Just don't want to veer into an unnecessary tangent.

 

[Bedrockgames]

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.

Not everyone just accepts every rule put in the book though. If they did, we wouldn't have editions splits and edition wars. But I guess rather than speak abstractly, what sort of thing would you like to see in a game like D&D in order to address this issue (and mind you, I don't even play 5E at this point, so it doesn't really affect me one way or another which direction D&D goes anymore).

 

[Ovinomancer]

In your opinion. You shouldn't be presenting your opinion as if it were fact, because it's not.

Max, it's fact that nothing that happens in your game is realistic because it's fiction. You made it up. You can't make up the real world. "Realism" in this case has nothing to do with the real world, only your preference for how outcomes are explained. And having such a preference is laudable -- it creates believable, internally consistent worlds. But, here's the thing, it's not more realistic that any other method because all methods are equally not realistic. The difference is where you do the thinking on the consistency -- you do it before you call for a mechanic and build the mechanic according to your thinking. IE, if you think it's very unlikely for the cultists to be at the tea shop, you build a mechanic that reflects your thinking it's unlikely. If the mechanic says they're there, then it's clearly for X reasons. The other way is to just use a defined mechanic and then build the thinking that explains the outcome. IE, if the mechanic says yes, then it just so happens that the cultists were at the tea shop for X reasons. Same "realism" because the cultists are at the tea shop for the same reasons (X) in both cases.

The real world has absolutely nothing to do with your fiction, and so "realism," as in reflecting the real world, is a red herring. "Realism" as in "believable, coherent, internally consistent fiction" is fine, but your preferred method doesn't necessarily generate that in any greater quantity than another.

 

[Bedrockgames]

but you're the guy who some years ago now was up to his armpits in a "How to Fight a Forgist" thread on another site that you moderate, which was not about any sort of dispassionate analysis but all about attacking someone (ie me) with playstyle preferences different from yours and your site's.

I do want to address this seriously because I think it is an important point. I have definitely been involved in online debates about RPGs. I am a gamer. Gamer's get passionate. But something I realized over time with all this: none of the camps are really going anywhere. You can have a million 'how to fight a forgist threads" a million threads questioning immersion or sandbox play; all of the people who belong to those things, they are not going away just because someone scored points on an internet forum. All I've seen over the years with these flamewars is people dividing themselves into increasingly smaller camps, with less and less reach. I think most gamers, probably don't care as much as we do about these conflicts. And I think it is always better to get information from the horse's mouth. These days, rather than check out a 'how to fight a forgist' thread, I'd be much more interesting in checking out Ron Edwards youtube channel to get his viewpoints (and again for the record, I have always maintained my small number of interactions with him have always been positive, I don't have an issue with Ron Edwards personally and find him to be a charismatic and intelligent person). I think with the Forge, where it rubbed me the wrong way in the past, was aggressive forge defenders needling me on a playstyle preference in threads and just some of the concepts not really resonating that strongly with me (for whatever reason). But I don't think either of those things are a valid reason for me to assume things about other people who found use in the forge, or to lump all 'forgists' together. And I think if you look at most of my posts in recent years on theRPGsite, you will see I do try to make that distinction (though like most posters, I have my moments as well).

EDIT: Also just as a personal note, if there is anything I said in that thread on fighting forgists that you personally found insulting, let me know. I do admit I get annoyed at you sometimes, but I don’t hate you or anything. I am happy to apologize if I said something nasty or reconsider if I said something you think is inaccurate. I am looking at the thread now and in the first twenty pages or so I don’t seem to say anything too objectionable (I actually compliment you and I make the same point about the forge I made a few posts back). But it is a long thread and so haven’t reviewed it all yet.

 

[Ovinomancer]

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.

Maybe it does, maybe it doesn't, but I can say that no one in this thread should be the determiner of that. 5e hasn't changed and it's leading a renaissance in gaming right now (perhaps due to streaming being also new, but still, 5e appears easy to stream), so it's ingrained DM-centered authorities clearly isn't a bad model. The non-DM-centered authority games are still pretty small slices of the market, even together.

Now, you and me might make changes, and discussions like this can aid it, but the market is vastly bigger than the handful of posters still engaging in this thread, or the slightly larger bucket of posters that come to ENW to argue about pretend-elf games on the internet.