D&D General Alternate thought - rule of cool is bad for gaming

[pemerton]

That dice are rolled (in absence of the illusory railroad) shows that the referees vision is not determinate.

The common view of d&d players is that ‘dm decides’ enhances the game if the DM can appropriately do that at the right moments for their table.

To me, there appears to be some tension here: if "GM decides" is the ultimate resolution rule for 5e D&D, then that seems to suggest that the GM's vision is determinate.

There will always be bad DMs. I just can't imagine any game system, any set of rules, making a bad DM into a good GM.

Even within the D&D-verse of RPGs, there is no single thing that is a "good DM/GM".

Here is Lewis Pulsipher's description of a good GM for classic dungeon-crawling/wargame-style D&D, written in the late 70s (I'm referencing Best of White Dwarf Articles vol 1):

The referee must think of himself as a friendly computer with discretion.​

That's not a bad job description for that sort of GMing. But it wasn't the only vision of GMing D&D around at the time - in the same article where Pulsipher wrote that, he criticised "the escapists" who "can be divided into those who prefer to be told a story by the referee, in effect, with themselves as protagonist, and those who like a silly, totally unbelievable game." Pulsipher writes that "I personally conisder the silly/escapist style to be both boring and inferior for any campaign, though all right occasionally for a weird evening."

And since the late 70s further GMing methods have been developed, most notably the sort of "indie" approach that informed my own (and plenty of others') GMing of 4e D&D.

I am not a good GM for wargame-style D&D, because I struggle to act as a friendly computer with discretion. I think I am not a bad GM in a style in which the GM is not expected to be neutral, but rather is expected to actively care about the characters as characters, and to show that care in part by lovingly confronting them with character-specific adversity. This is why I don't play B/X D&D (which needs neutral refereeing) but do GM Torchbearer 2e, which takes some inspiration from B/X but calls for a GMing style much closer to Burning Wheel (from which the game also takes inspiration).

I am 100% confident that system can help GMing. I've just given examples: B/X D&D is a good system for those who want to GM a neutral, wargame-style D&D experience; but is a pretty terrible system for someone who wants to GM a game of the sort that I used 4e D&D to run, or that I use Torchbearer 2e to run.

And during the period 2008 to 2012 (or thereabouts) many D&D GMs discovered that 4e D&D was not a good system for the sort of GMing they wished to undertake. In many cases they spoke about it quite vocally!

 

[EzekielRaiden]

PbtA games take a very different approach than D&D does but it still ultimately comes down to automatic resolution, randomized resolution or using some resources.

So, where does that put things like, say, the Paladin's Quest move? Because there, the player declares their Quest and the Boons that quest provides--with examples for guidance, but purely declared by the player--and then the GM declares what Vows, again with examples for guidance, the Paladin must uphold in order to retain their Boons and their divine connection. A failure to uphold those Vows forfeits the benefits until the Paladin can ritually cleans themselves, and that might be a significant undertaking in its own right.

That's not automatic, it requires no rolls, and no one spends resources. Both sides, in a certain sense, are "wagering"; the Paladin in choosing a reasonable quest befitting the established events/facts of the world ("the fiction"), and reasonable boons for pursuing that quest. The GM, in kind, chooses Vows that will complicate the completion of that quest in interesting, action-provoking ways.

E.g., I once chose a quest to aid a dwarven smith-fortress besieged by orcs, and chose as my boons A Mark of Divine Authority and Invulnerability to Fire. The GM chose, as my Vows, Valor (forbidden: suffering an evil creature to live) and Hospitality (required: comfort to those in need, no matter who they are)--because he knew that the reason the orcs were besieging the city was because they were using a kidnapped red dragon (an evil creature!)....which was being tortured, and having its children tortured or slain, to keep it enslaved to fire their forges.

This created an interesting conundrum: how would my Paladin deal with the situation? He has to render aid to anyone in need, and surely the dragon's children, and likely the dragon itself, would be in need. But it is a creature of evil! Fortunately, the choice was ultimately taken out of my Paladin's hands for unrelated reasons, and the red dragon broke free as an ancient vampire red dragon. (Complicated story, would take too long to explain. Suffice it to say a questionably-rational halfling fighter stuffed a vial of ancient vampire blood into the dragon's neck to "empower" it so it could escape.)

That was a really good campaign of DW.

 

[Oofta]

To me, there appears to be some tension here: if "GM decides" is the ultimate resolution rule for 5e D&D, then that seems to suggest that the GM's vision is determinate.

Even within the D&D-verse of RPGs, there is no single thing that is a "good DM/GM".

Here is Lewis Pulsipher's description of a good GM for classic dungeon-crawling/wargame-style D&D, written in the late 70s (I'm referencing Best of White Dwarf Articles vol 1):

The referee must think of himself as a friendly computer with discretion.​

That's not a bad job description for that sort of GMing. But it wasn't the only vision of GMing D&D around at the time - in the same article where Pulsipher wrote that, he criticised "the escapists" who "can be divided into those who prefer to be told a story by the referee, in effect, with themselves as protagonist, and those who like a silly, totally unbelievable game." Pulsipher writes that "I personally conisder the silly/escapist style to be both boring and inferior for any campaign, though all right occasionally for a weird evening."

And since the late 70s further GMing methods have been developed, most notably the sort of "indie" approach that informed my own (and plenty of others') GMing of 4e D&D.

I am not a good GM for wargame-style D&D, because I struggle to act as a friendly computer with discretion. I think I am not a bad GM in a style in which the GM is not expected to be neutral, but rather is expected to actively care about the characters as characters, and to show that care in part by lovingly confronting them with character-specific adversity. This is why I don't play B/X D&D (which needs neutral refereeing) but do GM Torchbearer 2e, which takes some inspiration from B/X but calls for a GMing style much closer to Burning Wheel (from which the game also takes inspiration).

I am 100% confident that system can help GMing. I've just given examples: B/X D&D is a good system for those who want to GM a neutral, wargame-style D&D experience; but is a pretty terrible system for someone who wants to GM a game of the sort that I used 4e D&D to run, or that I use Torchbearer 2e to run.

And during the period 2008 to 2012 (or thereabouts) many D&D GMs discovered that 4e D&D was not a good system for the sort of GMing they wished to undertake. In many cases they spoke about it quite vocally!

Well, that kind of assumes anyone ever reads the DMG for any version of D&D. Or, more to the point that they actually follow the guidance. Because the earlier forms of D&D were certainly more adversarial if you followed Gygax's advice but it was also something we personally stopped doing fairly quickly. Not saying I would necessarily want teenage as a DM because I'm sure my preferences have changed, but we also didn't play D&D as war.

Certainly different games will give you a different overall experience, but what makes for a good GM for one group may make for a terrible GM for another. There are people who only want to roll dice and slay imaginary enemies while others are happy with hours-long shopping trips. The rules can only shape the experience in general. Of course other games are far more focused on one style and/or genre than D&D so again at a certain point you're comparing apples and oranges again.

 

[FrogReaver]

To me, there appears to be some tension here: if "GM decides" is the ultimate resolution rule for 5e D&D, then that seems to suggest that the GM's vision is determinate.

As an example - "the players roll dice to try and befriend an NPC and roll a success'. What part of that was determined by the GM, and if any part was, then was it enough to say the 'GM's vision is determinate', because that's a much stronger statement than saying something like the GM determines the DC.

*I'm more familiar with BitD than AW, so I'll use it as an example. In it the GM sets position, effect and specific consequences for when a failure is rolled. Those are definitely aspects the GM determines, but I don't think you think that those mean the GM's vision in BitD is determinate.

 

[Oofta]

So, where does that put things like, say, the Paladin's Quest move? Because there, the player declares their Quest and the Boons that quest provides--with examples for guidance, but purely declared by the player--and then the GM declares what Vows, again with examples for guidance, the Paladin must uphold in order to retain their Boons and their divine connection. A failure to uphold those Vows forfeits the benefits until the Paladin can ritually cleans themselves, and that might be a significant undertaking in its own right.

That's not automatic, it requires no rolls, and no one spends resources. Both sides, in a certain sense, are "wagering"; the Paladin in choosing a reasonable quest befitting the established events/facts of the world ("the fiction"), and reasonable boons for pursuing that quest. The GM, in kind, chooses Vows that will complicate the completion of that quest in interesting, action-provoking ways.

E.g., I once chose a quest to aid a dwarven smith-fortress besieged by orcs, and chose as my boons A Mark of Divine Authority and Invulnerability to Fire. The GM chose, as my Vows, Valor (forbidden: suffering an evil creature to live) and Hospitality (required: comfort to those in need, no matter who they are)--because he knew that the reason the orcs were besieging the city was because they were using a kidnapped red dragon (an evil creature!)....which was being tortured, and having its children tortured or slain, to keep it enslaved to fire their forges.

This created an interesting conundrum: how would my Paladin deal with the situation? He has to render aid to anyone in need, and surely the dragon's children, and likely the dragon itself, would be in need. But it is a creature of evil! Fortunately, the choice was ultimately taken out of my Paladin's hands for unrelated reasons, and the red dragon broke free as an ancient vampire red dragon. (Complicated story, would take too long to explain. Suffice it to say a questionably-rational halfling fighter stuffed a vial of ancient vampire blood into the dragon's neck to "empower" it so it could escape.)

That was a really good campaign of DW.

You had a different structure to set up challenges and how to resolve them than D&D uses. I didn't mean to imply that I listed every possible conception about how to handle things. This seems to be picking at the details while ignoring the gist of what I was saying, I'm not attempting to write a thesis on comparative game theories. Especially not for something I probably wrote up while finishing up my morning tea. The point is that there were goals and obstacles, ways of approaching them. Who has narrative control, how the decision points are made will always change based on the system. I fail to see the point you're trying to make.

There is no one true way, whether that's DMing and play style in D&D or game systems with entirely different approaches. In your example, the player set up the challenges for themselves but they were still challenges that had to be overcome. In my home D&D campaign I discuss options with my players offline, give them options of what direction to go and so on. But they don't know much detail about what they could face other than what their character can glean or they choose to get the barest outline and charge in blindly. In other games, such as the Curse of Strahd campaign I wrapped up not too long ago, I didn't really have much influence over the overall narrative (which I knew going in so it was okay). Other people on this forum have discussed handing over significant amounts of world building to the players.

Unless you're just telling stories around the virtual campfire, there will be roles and rules, restrictions on how you achieve goals. Exact implementation and process doesn't really matter, whether it's good or bad, whether it works for any individual is always going to vary based on the people playing and what they want out of the game.

 

[Umbran]

As an example - "the players roll dice to try and befriend an NPC and roll a success'. What part of that was determined by the GM, and if any part was, then was it enough to say the 'GM's vision is determinate', because that's a much stronger statement than saying something like the GM determines the DC.

Well, since it was your statement, what does "GM decides" really mean, then?

 

[FrogReaver]

Well, since it was your statement, what does "GM decides" really mean, then?

Well actually it was @pemerton that brought it up initially (see below) and I'm trying to determine what he really means by it. So since it was his statement, maybe ask him?

Trusting the referee is a red herring. If I wanted the referee's vision of the fiction to be determinate, I'd ask them to tell me a story.

 

[Umbran]

Well actually it was @pemerton that brought it up initially

No, I want to know what YOU think it means. You said, "The common view of d&d players is that ‘dm decides’ enhances the game if the DM can appropriately do that at the right moments for their table."

Did you say that without having any idea in your own mind what the phrase meant? What were you thinking it meant when you wrote that?

 

[FrogReaver]

No, I want to know what YOU think it means. You said, "The common view of d&d players is that ‘dm decides’ enhances the game if the DM can appropriately do that at the right moments for their table."

Did you say that without having any idea in your own mind what the phrase meant? What were you thinking it meant when you wrote that?

Please don’t make this personal.

 

[tetrasodium]

This player suggested the "GM decides" is looking a lot like "well we can't say the quiet part out loud, we both know what it means"