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

[Bedrockgames]

Obviously, always assuming the worst can be annoying and can get in the way of discussion....like always assuming a player would introduce a fictional element only for a mechanical advantage and not for any other reason.

I am not assuming the worst about this. There are honest differences in preference on this matter. But know the group your in. And in certain groups, claiming your uncle would give you that kind of information, might be perceived as cheating (unless there was a very good reason for it to be the case in the campaign). Again, I don't even share Maxperson's preference here. I just think people are betraying an unwillingness to even engage his playstyle. He isn't asking anyone to eat nails. He is saying at his table, you shouldn't act on things your character wouldn't know, and he includes among those things like monster vulnerabilities. That is not a difficult lane to stay inside at all.

 

[hawkeyefan]

Sure, but I think it is very telling where all the analysis leads: all the places things can go wrong, seem to reside amid other peoples' playstyle preference. When your analysis slowly but surely builds an argument for the playstyle you prefer, you might want to question how much bias is leaking into the debate. This just does not appear to me to be a healthy exploration of game style preferences, gaming issues, and problems. It looks like a fight between play styles where people are couching their point of view as objective analysis even though it isn't anything approaching that.

The problem isn't GM authority. GM authority can be a perfectly valid thing in a game. The issue is some GMs don't wield it well, some players bristle at it, etc. Again, if you prefer games with less GM authority, that is totally fine. But treating it as a universal problem because you don't like it: that is where this conversation goes off the rails.

Yeah, I don't think I've done that.

I run a 5E D&D game which is of course very GM driven. As I said, it may allow for more player input than the average D&D game, or than what most would allow based on the rules as presented. But it's still got plenty of GM authority in it.

There's nothing at all wrong with that.

But then, I also didn't take offense to the use of the term Mother May I....because I can see how it applies.

 

[hawkeyefan]

I am not assuming the worst about this. There are honest differences in preference on this matter. But know the group your in. And in certain groups, claiming your uncle would give you that kind of information, might be perceived as cheating (unless there was a very good reason for it to be the case in the campaign). Again, I don't even share Maxperson's preference here. I just think people are betraying an unwillingness to even engage his playstyle. He isn't asking anyone to eat nails. He is saying at his table, you shouldn't act on things your character wouldn't know, and he includes among those things like monster vulnerabilities. That is not a difficult lane to stay inside at all.

Sure. But what a character would or wouldn't know is subjective, right? The lane has some wavy lines, in that sense. This is what's interesting to me, and is what I'm talking about.

But that aside, I get what would be expected at his game, absolutely. I don't think anyone here doesn't get that.

 

[Bedrockgames]

But then, I also didn't take offense to the use of the term Mother May I....because I can see how it applies.

My position on this hasn't changed. I've been banging this drum for years when it comes to labels like Magic Tea Party and Mother May I. Threads like this just demonstrate why those kinds of labels are such an issue in gaming discussions.

 

[Numidius]

My position on this hasn't changed. I've been banging this drum for years when it comes to labels like Magic Tea Party and Mother May I. Threads like this just demonstrate why those kinds of labels are such an issue in gaming discussions.

I see different issues than you do. You point to labels, I point to behaviours being enforced by long standing habits and fostered by more recent manuals, eventually exemplified by labels.

I just scrolled on the 5e forum on this very board and found someone seeking help to un-knot his game that went too much binding for his Players and constrictive for the Gm to have a way out and to proceed forward.

 

[Bedrockgames]

I see different issues than you do. You point to labels, I point to behaviours being enforced by long standing habits and fostered by more recent manuals, eventually exemplified by labels.

I just scrolled on the 5e forum on this very board and found someone seeking help to un-knot his game that went too much binding for his Players and constrictive for the Gm to have a way out and to proceed forward.

Again, this is a playstyle issue, not an universal problem in need of fixing. I think the problem is you are pathologizing playstyle preference. Look 5E is a mainstream game. Maybe the problem isn't deeply rooted habits that need to be fixed. Maybe this is just what a mainstream RPG looks like. But 5E isn't the only game out there. It isn't a zero sum game. I don't play 5E because I realize my preferences are not fully aligned with mainstream gaming. So I play other systems. I don't feel a need to take apart the preferences that make up mainstream play or act like there is something deeply flawed about it. Instead I try to understand why people like these things. I am not getting a sense that that is what is going on here. This whole analysis feels like it is really just a defensive reaction to people not sharing your preference

 

[hawkeyefan]

My position on this hasn't changed. I've been banging this drum for years when it comes to labels like Magic Tea Party and Mother May I. Threads like this just demonstrate why those kinds of labels are such an issue in gaming discussions.

Sure, and that’s fine. I agreed that some terms are loaded and can get in the way, or can provoke a response that distracts from discussion. But I also thibk we’ve largely moved past that concern in this conversation, and any use of Mother May I is now to describe an undesirable amount of GM Authority.

 

[dragoner]

First off, quit it with the snipes. It was bad enough you were trying to tie me to views I don't hold in the orc thread in a very deceptive way. But this kind of posting tactic is getting particularly frustrating in this thread. If you have a personal problem with me, please take it to PM.

If we are including HP and dice rolls as metagaming, I would say that is an overly strict definition of the term. Usually when people invoke meta gaming they are talking about players applying knowledge outside the game events to their actions. And that is the kind of meta gaming Maxperson is discussing.

Yes, we have no snipes today. lol

I am not doing anything, if you feel tied with those "vilest people" (not my words, but apt), it is not due to my noticing it or not, this isn't a Schrödinger's cat type situation. Nor do I want to hear what you have to say in private, that you would not say publicly. As it appears you do understand what geezer's point was, it does seem somewhat disingenuous, your previous statements.

 

[Bedrockgames]

Yes, we have no snipes today. lol

I am not doing anything, if you feel tied with those "vilest people" (not my words, but apt), it is not due to my noticing it or not, this isn't a Schrödinger's cat type situation. Nor do I want to hear what you have to say in private, that you would not say publicly. As it appears you do understand what geezer's point was, it does seem somewhat disingenuous, your previous statements.

I think the way you presented that characterization on the other thread definitely suggested I believed things I don't. And those are things aI publicly spoke out against at the time, so I was especially bothered by your breakdown of the history.

 

[Bedrockgames]

Nor do I want to hear what you have to say in private, that you would not say publicly. As it appears you do understand what geezer's point was, it does seem somewhat disingenuous, your previous statements.

I honestly don't understand this part of our conversation. I viewed your invocation of Old Geezer's statement (which I hadn't recalled seeing before) as a non sequitur when I first saw it.