D&D General Fighting Law and Order

[Manbearcat]

Absolutely. A significant part of the reason to reduce or eliminate the need for the GM to act as a referee is so that they can be emotionally invested in the characters, seek to put them through the crucible and see how they come out on the other end.

@FrozenNorth , I agree with @Campbell above and I also agree with what you've said, but I want to make sure that we're all on the same page here. That is because, sometimes, people who do not play games where "be a fan of the player characters" is an organizing principles get confused as to what exactly that principle means.

What that principle means:

* Engage with the player character's dramatic needs. Follow player and system cues as to what that is about, follow player breadcrumbs when they introduce content that pursues that and frame scenes that put provokes and tests those dramtic needs. It is a statement about "what is the nature of conflict in our game?" If the answer to that question is "what the players have flagged via system and direct input" and you're relentlessly engaging with that, then you're "being a fan of the player characters."

What that principle does not mean:

* (a) Having a preferred outcome in favor of players and/or (b) executing a preferred outcome in favor of the PCs by putting your thumb on the scales.

---

TLDR: Its about the nature of content-following-protagonism and who decides what that protagonism is, not preferred outcomes or thumbs on scales.

EDIT - @pemerton , I'm working backwards and barely following along! I just grabbed a snip of something I briefly saw and it was something I could comment on quickly so I figured I would! Though I will gladly retcon a "ninja'd" into my post for you

 

[pemerton]

sometimes, people who do not play games where "be a fan of the player characters" is an organizing principles get confused as to what exactly that principle means.

What that principle means:

* Engage with the player character's dramatic needs. Follow player and system cues as to what that is about, follow player breadcrumbs when they introduce content that pursues that and frame scenes that put provokes and tests those dramtic needs. It is a statement about "what is the nature of conflict in our game?" If the answer to that question is "what the players have flagged via system and direct input" and you're relentlessly engaging with that, then you're "being a fan of the player characters."

Without wanting to dispute the timeliness of your reiteration, I point humbly to these posts upthread:

in AW and DW (I can't speak to other PbtA games) it is the players who establish their PCs' goals, desires, dramatic needs, etc. So being a fan of the players means establishing and resolving fiction having regard to those play-authored concerns.

AW and DW (I can't speak to other PbtA games) reinforce this by describing GM moves in terms that are relative to exactly those player-authored concerns ("badness", "opportunity", "cost", etc).

In non-railroading play, as I understand it, it is the GM's job to frame scenes that speak directly to those player-authored concerns. This is what be a fan of the characters (a slogan from AW/DW) means. The rulebook for Burning Wheel (my favourite RPG) doesn't use the slogan but similarly has instructions to the GM which explain that it is the GM's job to frame scenes in this fashion.

The 4e DMG also has similar advice, when it tells the GM that it is best to "say 'yes'" to player-authored quests for their PCs.

You know all those posts I've made over the past day or so, explaining how I regard it as a railroad unless it is the players who establish what the stakes are, what dramatic needs will be addressed, etc? That is what being a fan of the characters means: the GM's job is to follow the players' lead, as manifested in the players' build and play of their PCs, as to what is at stake, what dramatic needs are addressed, etc.

 

[Oofta]

Absolutely. A significant part of the reason to reduce or eliminate the need for the GM to act as a referee is so that they can be emotionally invested in the characters, seek to put them through the crucible and see how they come out on the other end.

So you think that in order to be emotionally invested or put through the ringer the only or best way to do that is to not have a GM?

Wouldn't work for me and people in my games often become quite attached to their PCs. Having to build the world and play my character at the same time would actually make me less invested because I can't concentrate on just my character.

Different strokes I guess. Then again I don't state my preference as fact.

EDIT: I totally misread the comment, trying to cut back on caffeine. I still disagree, I don't see how being a referee impacts my ability to be emotionally invested in the characters.

 

[FrozenNorth]

But see, you're putting "allowed" in scare quotes here. Unless the players are actively prevented from doing something--either because the GM disallows it, makes sure doing their own thing fails, or something else--they do have an actual choice and it's not railroading. The GM is just providing other things to do and places to go.

If I understand @pemerton correctly, he is pointing out an inconsistency in the rules based on how generally speaking D&D rules gives ultimate authority to the DM.

Several of the posters here have stated that in their games, if a player wanted to explore an element of their backstory, they would accommodate them.

The elf who hates his father-in-law would be given an opportunity to find him and confront him.

But, as I understand it, the DM could unilaterally decide that the elf doesn’t find his FiL because he failed his Gather Information check, or the FiL is already dead, or the adventure takes place in Barovia so there is no way for the elf to confront his FiL.

So the player can do what he wants, but only up to the point where the DM decides differently. And this is permissible under D&D rules, because the DM has ultimate authority.

Some people might counter that a DM who ignores his players’ backstory is a “bad DM” (TM, patent pending). If so, bad DMs are a lot more common than @Oofta and @Maxperson seem to think, because my experience is that DMs who let their idea of the story supersede the characters is a pretty common DM failing.

It is also an error that CAN be corrected by proper guidance in the DMG, on the first page and at the level of DM Agenda or DM principles. Because the DMs doing this aren’t necessarily malicious, and the constant refrain of “the DM is the ultimate authority” isn’t helping matters.

 

[pemerton]

Absolutely. A significant part of the reason to reduce or eliminate the need for the GM to act as a referee is so that they can be emotionally invested in the characters, seek to put them through the crucible and see how they come out on the other end.

So you think that in order to be emotionally invested or put through the ringer the only or best way to do that is to not have a GM?

@Campbell said more or less the opposite of that. He said that, because he wants the GM to be able to emotionally invest in the PCs, and put them through the crucible, therefore the GM needs to be relieved of the duty of refereeing.

And he is pointing (implicitly, but in the context of this thread it's not very implicit) to RPGs that achieve this design goal, of relieving the GM of any such duty: AW (and DW), Burning Wheel, I would guess BitD would go in there, and I'd add Agon 2nd ed though I don't think @Campbell knows it quite as well.

 

[Aldarc]

So you think that in order to be emotionally invested or put through the ringer the only or best way to do that is to not have a GM?

That's clearly not what he said. He's talking about reducing or eliminating the GM in their role as a neutral referee and not reducing or eliminating the GM.

 

[pemerton]

If I understand @pemerton correctly, he is pointing out an inconsistency in the rules based on how generally speaking D&D rules gives ultimate authority to the DM.

I don't have a view on the rules of 5e D&D, except that they seem to suggest a very different approach from (say) AW - I contrasted the two examples of play upthread.

I think 4e D&D is quite clear in its discussion of player-authored quests, and clearly does not contemplate that the GM has sole authority over setting and stakes.

You are correct that I think there is a big difference between (i) a GM who has power and is willing to take suggestions, and (ii) a resolution system that establishes which, of candidate possibilities for the outcome of a declared PC action, actually becomes part of the shared fiction.

 

[Oofta]

That's clearly not what he said. He's talking about reducing or eliminating the GM in their role as a neutral referee and not reducing or eliminating the GM.

I asked because it didn't make sense. I edited the comment.

In any case: ignore what I said, but I don't think being a referee in any way stops me from being invested in the characters or doing what I can to make the game enjoyable for everyone at the table. Whether that involves putting people through an emotional wringer is a table preference, even though I have made players cry in a good way.

 

[Lanefan]

My honest preference would be a moment of self-awareness, if not some self-reflection, that you are punching down from a playstyle preference that enjoys a position of mass market dominance against a playstyle preference that gets regularly marginalized, othered, and disregarded with "bespoke" language on this forum.

This sounds almost like a reverse appeal to popularity. Instead of "it's popular therefore it must be good", here it's "it's popular therefore it's not allowed to defend itself".

Sorry, not buying it.

 

[Vaalingrade]

Is it even actually that popular?