I answered some of this above, but no I don't share a setting gazetteer. I do have a sect section in my rulebook (which I mentioned in a prior post) and that is something the players can read if they are inclined. My general attitude is I never like to dump information like that on people before a game (I don't like giving anything that feels like homework). So instead I focus on questions and answers before a session usually if we need to establish what they know. We can also do that during the session, I don't particularly worry about stopping to explain things if they need some info. But I would say it is all very freeform and organic, and based on my sense of what characters would know (perhaps based on who they are, where they are, the occasional knowledge roll, etc). I don't usually get super specific (like this man in this village knows this, unless i am running a mystery or something). There are probably other ways things crop up in play. I basically do what feels natural.
Okay, that helps me get a sense. Survival skill as a kind of means of gathering info or understanding the local situation. Some freeform narration from NPCs and the like.
One impression I am getting from this conversation is you like clear procedures and it seems you probably like consistency too in that respect. My style is probably much more intuitive and hand wavy than yours. When I make a game for example, I may have a vision of how I want to run it, but I could care less if others cleave to that vision. They are free to run the game how they like. And in my own games I am not overly precious about any of this.
It honestly depends on the game for me. My 5E campaign is pretty loose. Mostly because the rules system is a bit of a mixed bag. But I’m lucky enough that my group and I have been playing together for years and so we understand each other, and so we kind of run the game the way that we want to. So there are plenty of rules that we change or ignore or handwave away.
Now, having said that, I try to be aware of my procedures and how they impact players’ decisions, and so on. I try to remain consistent in my approach and I do utilize some best practices that I think help. All of my rolls are made in the open, all DCs are announced. I almost never call for a roll...I prefer that the player be the one to decide to act (I haven’t been able to quite eliminate this entirely). Besides those more rules focused things, we use the Backgrounds and the Traits, Ideals, Bonds, and Flaws a bit more significantly. A lot of those decisions are what we base play on. I also try as much as possible to use certain principles that are cited by PbtA and BitD....play to find out, ask questions and build on the answers, be a fan of the characters....that kind of stuff.
With my Blades in the Dark games, I stick closer to the rules because they’re very tightly integrated and they’re designed with a clear intent which is coherent and consistent. They’re not the Frankenstein’s monster that 5E D&D kind of is....and they work really well.
But I do think if we’re examining how we play, that understanding what we’re doing and why, and the impact that has on player decisions and their ability to fully realize the setting and their characters’ place in it, is, if not necessary, then at least beneficial.
Also I am pretty low ego as a GM. I am not the greatest GM in the world by any stretch, and freely admit to being a bit on the lazy side, but I also admit when I make errors to my players, I am pretty transparent about my thinking process and rationale when I make judgements, and all that goes a long way I find. I am also not an 'actor'. I have such a dry delivery sometimes I have to give my players additional descriptive information so they know if an NPC is being sarcastic or angry.
One procedure or technique I do frequently use that may be of importance here is the long distance villain:
LONG-DISTANCE VILLAINY
I did this two or three times in my Ogre Gate Campaign. Most recently in the Lady 87 campaign I had the player who played Bone Breaker in the original disposable disciples, play Scholar Han (a character who emerged as an antagonist to the party over the course of play). What this does is allows me to throw a villain at the party who is truly gloves off. While I embrace let the dice fall where they may and I have no compunction about killing PCs, you still are always restrained by a sense of fairness I find. So this helps shake things up. I make clear to the players that another player is taking on the villain role, has resources and is going all out against them. The only problem that arises with this is you can sometimes misunderstand or misapply the orders given the long distance villain (since that person is usually not at the table).
That’s pretty interesting. I don’t know if I’ve ever heard anyone do that before. That’s cool.
I can sometimes be a bit soft on the characters in my D&D game. The players have grown quite attached to the group, and I suppose I have, too. So I get the idea of relying on the long distance player to kind of be tough on the characters.
I’ve found that less necessary with Blades because the way the game works it gives the players strong means to prevent character death. It allows you as a GM to swing hard when you should. That can be harder to do in other games.
I think that what I would worry about if I was to actually run 5E D&D for a group of players who were new to me is that I would struggle to do what the game actually expects the GM to do. It’s very GM centric....the players only understand what the GM tells them. The GM sets the scene and the stakes and the difficulty and likely the outcome. Several points where errors or miscommunications can be made that impact a player’s understanding, which then influences their choices.
Is this ever something you worry about?
