D&D General D&D's Evolution: Rulings, Rules, and "System Matters"

[Chaosmancer]

Fans certainly can be irrational at times, but not always. I don’t think the principle of “being a fan” as we’re talking about in relation to roleplaying is telling us to be some kind of soccer hooligan.

It’s telling us to be a fan in the same way that we root for John McClane in Die Hard. Yes, we care about the character and we’re pulling for him to save Holly and kill Hans.

But it doesn’t mean we don’t want to see him walk across broken glass and get shot in order to do it.

In writing this is summed up pithly in the statement "You should empathize with your characters, not sympathize with them"

The idea is that you must have empathy, you must be able to feel what they are feeling, so that they react accordingly. However, once that turns to sympathy, you are more likely to alter the story to make the character's life easier, which is generally more boring than the original content. This can go the other way though, to be fair, where there are writers who seem almost sadistic towards their characters, in a way that is equally detrimental to the writing process.

 

[chaochou]

Having looked into it some more, the use of the name Free Kriegspiel to mistakenly pretend that GM-controlled rpgs are run on similar principles to the an umpired wargame is simply an attempt to disguise a cult of rule zero* with a pretentious name.

*so named because that's the amount of agency the players have.

 

[Chaosmancer]

I think that this might just be an issue of connotation?

As far as I'm concerned, if you aren't running a game on the principle "referee neutrality," then the GM will be "putting their thumb on the scale." But that's by definition! If you are running a game by other GM principles, or trying "to move the game in certain ways," then you are influencing the direction of the game.

It seems like you are reading that phrase like it's a bad thing? I was using it solely in the sense of adding weight to the situation (in other words, moving the game in a certain direction), not in the negative or pejorative sense of cheating.

To the extent I used a phrase that had connotations I wasn't thinking about, I apologize.

I don't think it is reading the phrase like it is a bad thing, just noting that the "platonic ideal" of neutrality would be running the scenario whether or no the situation that resolves from that scenario is fun. Which I think is a fair criticism of neutrality gone too far.

So, if we hold neutrality up as an ideal, which some GM/Storytellers/ECT do, then what do you do when neutrality leads to boring and unfun resolutions? I think this comes back to the post I made a few minutes ago, Empathy not Sympathy. Understand that your players want things, and skew in that direction to make an exciting story, but don't say "I know you really wanted to succeed right there, so I'm going to let you succeed no matter what"



Side Note: I'm wondering how useful the idea of scales actually is as a metaphor. A scale has a central pillar and then two sides balancing from that pillar. But if the DM or the world is the pillar... there isn't another side. The DM doesn't have to balance the concerns of the orcs to capture an NPC with the concerns of the party protecting that NPC, because the DM is both the orcs and the NPC. They both want to be captured and want to escape, both sides don't get what they want, the PCs determine which side prevails through their actions.

I wonder instead if a more insightful idea of balance would come from holding a very full bowl of water. There is no "other side" but you still have to maintain a level field and not tip too far one way or the other,or you make a mess.

 

[turnip_farmer]

If complete neutrality was the goal, wouldn't a computer be a better choice? It doesn't favor anyone and runs the process?

I thought human judgement was there to improve things when the process would lead to lastluster results?

That's not the only benefit of a human. A computer is limited in being able to process a set of predefined inputs. The special thing about a table-top rpg, with a human GM, is the idea that you can do anything (or, at least, you can try anything). You don't need to choose your dialogue from a curated list of options. You can say whatever stupid thing comes into your head and a human GM can improvise an appropriate response. That's an entirely orthogonal issue to neutrality

 

[Ovinomancer]

Cthulhu Dark (the 4-page free version, which is the version I know and have played) presents itself as designed for playing through published CoC scenarios. It flags, as a hypothetical possibility, its use to play improvised scenarios.

I've not used it for the first purpose but only for the second. My refereeing wasn't particular neutral: I used my sense of pacing and trajectory to call for checks, establish consequences of failure, and handle framing. In terms of principles, think AW; but in terms of resolution methods, think something closer to BW (say 'yes' or roll the dice) rather than AW (if you do it, you do it).

Yes, and I think I perhaps didn't clearly state my point.

IF I am using it to follow a prepared scenario, which in my experience of Mythos games are pretty well constrained solve the mystery style plotlines, then when I use Cthulhu Dark I must constrain the scope of action resolutions so that they remain within the scope of the scenario. This requires that I put my thumb on the scale of resolution, and cannot be neutral, because I have to mind:

a) the open nature of CD resolutions so that they conform to the scope of the scenario
b) limit when checks are made to appropriate moments for the scenario
c) constrain the resolution space of checks to maintain proper pacing

In return, the scenario space can be very neutral, in that it's created without expectation of any particular investigator being present and doesn't specifically hook any character. This is the FK concept of scenario -- neutral with regards to the players, but it's not the FK concept of resolution, which now cannot be neutral because it must conform to the pacing/story beats of the scenario.

If, on the other hand I am playing Cthulhu Dark in a more Story Now approach, I can be fully neutral in the resolution space because I have none of a, b, or c to concern myself with, but I cannot be neutral in the scenario space because I have to adapt to characters to provide thematic adversity for them to overcome.

Either way, Cthulhu Dark cannot be used to be neutral both in scenario AND in resolution at the same time. You have to pick. You can flip-flop, but that sounds like the least enjoyable approach.

 

[Snarf Zagyg]

So, if we hold neutrality up as an ideal, which some GM/Storytellers/ECT do, then what do you do when neutrality leads to boring and unfun resolutions?

Well, I think that to abstract this a little, it's like the difference between rule utilitarianism and act utilitarianism.

To briefly recap, and to avoid any contentious connotations, I will provide a google-approved definition:
There is a difference between rule and act utilitarianism. The act utilitarian considers only the results or consequences of the single act while the rule utilitarian considers the consequences that result of following a rule of conduct .

A proponent of neutral refereeing might say that while specific outcomes (acts) are boring and unfun, the consequences of following the principle for the table are more fun.

Again, I am not an advocate for any particular position, but I am reminded of a story I once heard relayed- a person was playing 3e (I think? maybe PF? or 2e ... it was a while ago) and they had a great time! They thought the DM was awesome. Later, they learned that the DM wasn't following the rules- wasn't being neutral; the DM was just "winging it" for everything. All of those careful bonuses that they had worried about ... didn't matter. And then, the experience transformed into a terrible one.

I often think about that, because it raises a lot of questions for me! Some of them are philosophical- what does it mean, really, if an experience can be great at the time, but you hate it later? But the more salient question point for this is that there are people who derive great pleasure from overcoming challenges, knowing that the referee is neutral, and knowing that the possibility of "boring" and "unfun" exists- because it makes the existence of fun, not boring, and success that much sweeter.

It's not everyone- in fact, I would say that given the limited amount of leisure time people have, it's probably the minority of people. Heck- look at video games. As much as people like to talk about how awesome those incredibly hard video games of the past were, there is a reason that modern video games tend to be incredibly forgiving (in terms of save states, or restarts, or lives, or whatever).

Anyway- that's the gist; it's not necessarily a problem if it leads to boring or unfun outcomes, because that ratifies the experience.

 

[pemerton]

@Ovinomancer, the closest that Cthulhu Dark (4 page version) gets to expressly recognising the point you made is this:

When you investigate, the highest die shows how much information you get. On a 1, you get the bare minimum: if you need information to proceed with the scenario, you get it, but that’s all you get. On a 4, you get whatever a competent investigator would discover. On a 5, you discover everything humanly possible. And, on a 6, you may glimpse beyond human knowledge (and probably make an Insanity roll). . . .

If someone thinks it would more interesting if you failed, they describe how you might fail and roll a die. (They can’t
do this if you’re investigating and you must succeed for the scenario to proceed).​

Need information to proceed and must succeed are not neutral notions!

 

[pemerton]

if we hold neutrality up as an ideal, which some GM/Storytellers/ECT do, then what do you do when neutrality leads to boring and unfun resolutions?

Upthread, I quoted Gygax from his DMG responding to this very issue. (You "liked" the post.)

I don't think it's a surprise that he felt the pressure. Especially as the "story"/"character" aspect of RPGing starts to loom larger in play.

 

[Umbran]

... it seems that you thought it was good fun to take the piss out of people...

Seriously- what is wrong with you?

Mod Note:
And, here is where I point out that the two of you have shifted into making things personal, and need to disengage from each other. Pelase and thanks, before we need to take stronger measures.

Having looked into it some more, the use of the name Free Kriegspiel to mistakenly pretend that GM-controlled rpgs are run on similar principles to the an umpired wargame is simply an attempt to disguise a cult of rule zero* with a pretentious name.

You do realize that, "people who disagree with me are members of a cult," is transparently insulting, and without rhetorical merit, don't you?

Since you've stooped to that, rather than being constructive, you're done in this conversation.

Folks, that's three at once that needed to be reminded about being respectful to each other. Please, let's not have a fourth.

 

[Desdichado]

Going to disagree. 3e still has lots and lots of ways to abuse the system and requires trust. Similarly, FKR has lots of ways to abuse the system and requires trust. Both can lose trust very quickly. The difference really is that in 3e you lose trust by misapplying or ignoring the understood rules of the game, and in FKR you lose trust by misapplying or ignoring the understood...rules.... wait. It would appear that you lose trust in both by putting your thumb on the scales.

While this is true, I think it's also equally true that a stated and clear design goal of 3e (and even AD&D, for that matter) to take trust somewhat out of the equation by minimizing the impact of DM judgement and fostering a reliance on rules-as-written. In the D&D-sphere, that's been true since the announcement of AD&D, with maybe the exception of the early runs of D&D (as opposed to AD&D) for a little while after the split, and it's also true in many other non-D&D games as well.

Of course, it's a quixotic and impossible goal, so of course it failed, as you point out. There's lots of ways to abuse the system, and trust is still required. But just because they failed doesn't mean that that isn't where the designer's heads are at.