D&D General Fighting Law and Order

[Aldarc]

I think a big part of this... and it's interesting because trust always comes up in these discussions, but it's always about trusting the GM... but many folks don't seem to trust their players to be able to contribute in meaningful ways.

I agree. I would add here, however, an obvious point that even if the GM does trust the player to contribute to the fiction we also have two (or more) player types involved: (1) ones that would want to contribute in meaningful ways, and (2) ones who don't want to. I fully understand and appreciate player type (2), which likely includes @Oofta and @Micah Sweet, because this is what I would expect if I was playing a more OSR* style game.

* In D&D it's been something of a mixed bag of experiences for me depending on the group. Again, this is the problem/feature of D&D as a Cheesecake Factory or big tent game. You will get a variety of playstyles with different roleplaying and dramatic needs, and players are potentially going into D&D blind about whether or not the GM, the group, or the game will deliver those roleplaying preferences through the different ways that D&D can be played. While a variety (though not all) playstyles are possible in D&D, it's great when groups are in-sync with their preferred playstyle, but also a potential pitfall trap when there are mismatched expectations and preferences in a given game.

I've been following this thread. I can't say how much I appreciate the detailed descriptions of DW and BW and BitD. I doubt my players would be interested, and frankly I don't know that I'd be very effective at running those games, but it's been great reading about them, and I'm starting to peruse the rules. I might even spend some money.

I am glad that you have found these detailed descriptions of DW, BW, and BitD informative. If you would like to create a new thread on the General forum, I am sure that people, including myself, would be happy to answer any additional questions you may have about whichever games have piqued your interest.

On that last point, I'm actually not certain BW is a game where anything has existence outside of the PCs. It doesn't seem to be thst kind of game.

A big part about all the different games we are discussing is the process of who and how the existence of a Thing becomes introduced into the game fiction. Different games have different processes, including sometimes exceptions to their general process.

 

[pemerton]

I'm actually not certain BW is a game where anything has existence outside of the PCs.

I don't know what that means. Or, at least, it seems to use the term existence in some very non-standard way.

In a game in which the players learn things about the setting by having the GM narrate it - the sort of game you, @Faolyn, @Lanefan and a few others have been describing - the setting elements that are imagined by, and known to, the players are all and only the setting elements of which their PCs are cognisant. After all, anything beyond that would mean that the players have knowledge of the setting that extends beyond, rather than correlating to, their PCs' knowledge.

So this doesn't seem very different from Burning Wheel.

So any difference must be on the GM side. And the difference in that respect is that your preferred approach to RPGing uses GM notes, and related tools like map-and-key, in a quite different way from Burning Wheel.

But I have to say, it seems really jargon-y and pretty non-standard to use the phrase "the setting exists outside of the PCs" to mean "the GM has pre-authored notes about the setting that are to be used to say 'yes' or 'no' to player action declarations regardless of intent, and independently of the result of any roll of the dice".

 

[FrozenNorth]

Well, not quite. Anyone can ask that the group go on The Quest, but the expectation is that those asked are free to decline if that's what those characters would do. This includes, most of the time, The Quests initiated by the DM: if they don't wanna do it then it doesn't get done, by them anyway (but it's then somewhat on the players-in-character to find something else to do if they haven't already).

I sort of feel I have a handle on how you play your game.

But to follow up;
First, do D&D rules grant the DM the authority to only propose The Quest and essentially decide that any player-authored quests simply do not meaningfully affect the world-state?

Second, if the answer to the first question is no, would it no longer be D&D if the rules explicitly recognized limits on GM authority?

Sort of. It's the selfishness of making what seem like non-refusable demands rather than softer asks which can be declined, is what I'm getting at.

This is what you wrote and what my post was in response to:

For another, it puts the GM in a very subservient position in that the role becomes merely one of catering to (or pandering to, whichever) the players' story arcs and-or whims, rather than being able to put her own idea for a story arc in there as well. And while I've joked elsewhere about AI GMs being the Next Big Thing, in this case it seems that's what you in fact would prefer to have: a GM that doesn't think for itself beyond the input you-as-player have given it to work with.

Do you believe more narrative games necessarily dissolve into every character selfishly following their own story to the detriment of the group?

If so, why don’t you believe the people who actually play those games and tell you it doesn’t happen?

 

[FrozenNorth]

People around here sometimes talk as if every player is constantly a veritable font of cool ideas. But that's not always the case. Everyone can use a boost now and again, a partner to work with, something to riff off of. And GM-authored material can fill that space nicely for a lot of folks.

Sure, but is there any RPG in which the GM doesn’t play a large role in creating setting-material? (Note: large role in this context doesn’t mean exclusive role).

 

[Umbran]

Sure, but is there any RPG in which the GM doesn’t play a large role in creating setting-material? (Note: large role in this context doesn’t mean exclusive role).

Given that there are RPGs with no GM at all? Yes.

 

[TwoSix]

Bloodtide is clearly pretty bombastic himself. To be perfectly honest I just feel like its a chance to go for it! I think he'll laugh, which is great. I hope so. I mean, clearly he says things to be provocative, and that's OK with me, I just know how to play that game too! Its even a game of skill, being provocative, but yet not actually mean. Try it sometime! You might level up your posting

I like how you're showing your agency.

 

[hawkeyefan]

Assuming what you are saying goes by the rules (I don't know), then "Blades" is NOT a "game with Wonderful Player Agency". A player can only do a tiny thing or two "with stress". So like maybe two a game? Then the WHOLE rest of the game is just a "Classic" where the GM has ALL the power and the GM "aggressively moves" the characters along THE GMs PLOT STORY, no matter what the players think or feel.

I gave one example, but there are plenty more things about Blades in the Dark that limit the GM authority and increases the players'. Neither role has absolute authority.

This game has a rule on a page of a book, but it's not like RPGs "need" this rule. After all, it's JUST the player making a VAGUE SUGGESTION with ZERO power and NO Agency....just like a classic RPG. So sure a player can say "whatever" and then the DM, with absoulte power, makes whatever they want based on the players couple words.

No, RPGs collectively don't need this rule. But this game has this rule, and many others like it.

Your tiny limited examples don't show that. Unless your saying doing one or two Extremely Limited Tiny Things in a game otherwise exactly like a classic All Powerful RPG, is "Enough".

No, I was just giving a few examples to give you an idea. I figured it was likely futile, but I figured I'd give it a try.

Yea, except I can't really "meet in the middle" as it's impossible for me. I'm more of "I run this type of game, if you don't like it, we won't game"

Sounds healthy.

 

[Micah Sweet]

I don't know what that means. Or, at least, it seems to use the term existence in some very non-standard way.

In a game in which the players learn things about the setting by having the GM narrate it - the sort of game you, @Faolyn, @Lanefan and a few others have been describing - the setting elements that are imagined by, and known to, the players are all and only the setting elements of which their PCs are cognisant. After all, anything beyond that would mean that the players have knowledge of the setting that extends beyond, rather than correlating to, their PCs' knowledge.

So this doesn't seem very different from Burning Wheel.

So any difference must be on the GM side. And the difference in that respect is that your preferred approach to RPGing uses GM notes, and related tools like map-and-key, in a quite different way from Burning Wheel.

But I have to say, it seems really jargon-y and pretty non-standard to use the phrase "the setting exists outside of the PCs" to mean "the GM has pre-authored notes about the setting that are to be used to say 'yes' or 'no' to player action declarations regardless of intent, and independently of the result of any roll of the dice".

How could it be jargon when I didn't use jargon? You translated my post into jargon and then accused me of what you wrote.

 

[CreamCloud0]

I don't know what that means. Or, at least, it seems to use the term existence in some very non-standard way.

my guess on their meaning given the context of the current conversation, is that until a player/GM specifically manifests something into the world to exist then nothing is existing, everything in the world that hasn't specifically been decided is a grey featureless blob of in potentia,

this typically grates against the type of person who values a world that exists independently of the players, one where even if the players weren't there to observe it still feels like it would still be doing it's own thing, a world where everything is where it is for a narrative reason and not just because the dice came up sixes so it now exists there because the player wanted/needed it to.

 

[Snarf Zagyg]

Given that there are RPGs with no GM at all? Yes.

Do you ever wonder if there are forums for contractors ....

And on those forums, there are people that just argue constantly about what tool is the best tool.

Zeno: I say, the world is a nail, and all I need is a hammer!

Achilles: To heck with you, Zeno. We all know that a screwdriver makes the world go round!

Tortoise: Guys, what about the drill, huh? Where would we be without drills?

Does it escalate?

Zeno: No! It's HAMMER TIME. Because rule zero is that the hammer is immovable object!

Achilles: That's what a hammer lover would say! Hammers deny agency to all the other tools, like the screwdriver. Only screwdrivers can frame scenes to allow the perfection that is the action on the screw.

Tortoise: Oh c'mon Achilles. You're just using jargon- everyone else knows that framing is a word used in carpentry... and carpenters use drills.


And that other people look at these forums and are like ... um ... don't people just use different tools at different times? Right? There's a word for that ... a box ... a box of tools ... I know it's on the tip of my tongue.