The GM is Not There to Entertain You

[Ovinomancer]

What is steelmanning?

Opposite of strawmanning, You make the best case argument that the supporting side would recognize as good, and then attack it. With a strawman, you erect a false argument that's subbed in and easily defeated.

 

[Ovinomancer]

Sure you can say players might complain, but a DM can still do it. And like really......so the players encounter character Bob and "think" he is a human. The players can scream 24/7/365 that Bob is always and must be human....then the GM can "just say" that "oh Bob is a demon, shapeshifter, dragon, or anything else". The players can stomp there feet all the live long day, but they are just being silly when they say "Bob must be human".





But again, this is how many games with GMs work. The characters wake up in the morning and the Gm says it's raining. Sure I guess some players might complain and demand it Always Be Sunny in RPGs.


Sure, you can be a hostile player and nitpick everything. That does not really make for a great game though.



Dare I say [Citation Needed] ........

Even the most BASIC "description" of things a GM might tell a player something feels strange or odd or off or comfortable or so on. So, that IS the GM telling the player what the character feels.

It's pretty clear that it's feel (emotions) not feel (physical).

 

[Manbearcat]

What is steelmanning?

This GM is here to entertain you.

 

[overgeeked]

Oh, you don't have to provide a pedigree, by no means.

When people dismiss criticism out of hand and accuse those criticizing of not having read, understood, played, or run these games it seems appropriate to say otherwise.

So, to answer your question, sure, the moment it stops being used as a crutch. If you present actual play from these games, examples that show your understanding -- you know, like I do, and @pemerton does, and @Manbearcat does, and... so on -- then you'll escape the questions.

Ah. So when I agree with you, you’ll stop questioning my credentials. That’s nice.

The players in a D&D game have no authority or say in when a conflict resolves. None.

News to me. They can’t walk away? They can’t retreat? They can’t surrender? They can’t relent? Any of which could resolve a conflict.

You've just blown your entire claim to understanding and having experience out of the water. That's expressly NOT how the move lists work. The players declare actions for their PCs in the fiction -- they don't mention moves but say what their character does in the fiction. Then, if their action implicates a move, the GM calls for the move to be made. The players aren't picking from a curated list, and nothing is out of bounds.

You’re intentionally misreading what I said. So what happens in a PbtA game when a PC does something not covered by a move? Either nothing mechanical or the referee makes it up. So, the mechanics only engage when the PCs do something on the curated list of moves. And yes, some of them are generic. Otherwise it’s free play, as I said before. But, importantly, there are times the referee can just make a move, like when the game stalls or the players look to the referee to see what happens next, etc.

So, again, a player makes a move and fails. The referee gets to make a move as a result. That move should either come from the fiction or introduce something new to the fiction. Great. And that referee move…if it’s a sequence of events, rather than a singular event…removes the players’ agency to respond.

And again, hard framing removes player agency because it’s the referee making a series of choices for the player that they might not have made.

I've played plenty of RPGs. I've never had that happen. Certainly not in a PbtA game, but also not in my D&D playing.

Lucky you.

 

[Thomas Shey]

Sure, you can be a hostile player and nitpick everything. That does not really make for a great game though.

Neither does a GM who changes everything on a whim. You seem to be under the impression the GM somehow has some power the players as a group don't cede him.

 

[Thomas Shey]

It's solo-play only?

I think they're referring to the fact there's no special benefit given to the group as a group. Best I can tell, most PbtA games are just as likely to be five characters doing different things than them doing anything collectively. In any case, the collective group is not treated as particularly significant.

 

[Aldarc]

I know it's fairly common to compare MHRP to Fate, but personally I don't really see it. It doesn't have compels (Limits can sometimes resemble compels, but they're much more targetted and "fine-tuned") and you don't earn Fate points for having your aspects invoked.

I think it's great for stylised and trope-heavy settings and situations. That's no surprise, given it's a super hero system. But has also made it easy to adapt for fantasy, including LotR/MERP.

I'm sorry, but how can you not? Here I am looking more broadly at Cortex Prime and Fate. Fictional descriptors for the character that involving Hindering or said descriptors in return for Plot Points. There are definitely differences between Aspects and Distinctions, PP and Fate Points, Hinderances and Compels, and other systems, but we are still looking at two games that operate with similar game philosophies and principles. IME, they both cultivate similar playstyles and game priorities. Moreover, there is an overlap of writers who have collaborated on the two systems, and there are even hybrid versions of the game out there.

 

[Lanefan]

No. It's a game - like many RPGs - in which the PCs are not members of a party or a warband.

If the PCs usually operate as a group, ideally pooling their strengths and skills such that the whole ends up being a bit more than the sum of the parts, that sounds like a party from here. They might do different things in different ways than a typical D&D group might, but they're still a group. D&D's class system somewhat encourages this interdependence by giving each class specific strengths and weaknesses, though this has been watered down some in recent editions.

If the PCs generally travel etc. together but don't usually operate as a group then other than entirely-table-dependent in-character bonds of friendship etc. what keeps them together?

And if they operate entirely as individuals (which seems highly unlikely) then why have everyone at the same table each week?

 

[Lanefan]

Heck, a steelmanning of how these games are expected to play would suffice. Can you steelman the expected play of a PbtA game?

Jargon question: what's "steelman" mean?

EDIT: ninja'ed by @Micah Sweet and answered by @prabe and others. Thanks!

 

[niklinna]

Jargon question: what's "steelman" mean?

Straw man - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org