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

[Umbran]

Please don’t make this personal.

We were given an assertion about a broad set of people. The phrase, "GM/DM decides" is central to that assertion. When asked for the meaning of that phrase, no definition, description, or concept was offered.

The deference to pemerton was a rhetorical device that a reasonable person should not take as literal, as pemerton didn't make the assertion in question. That the deflection brings to mind the possibility that maybe there was no concept behind the assertion should not be surprising. Asking about that possibility should not then be unaskable as "personal".

But, we can go back to the original question - when posting the assertion "The common view of d&d players is that ‘dm decides’ enhances the game...," what concept of 'DM decides' was involved? If there was no specific concept involved, could that fact be made clear to us instead?

 

[FrogReaver]

The deference to pemerton was a rhetorical device that a reasonable person should not take as literal, as pemerton didn't make the assertion in question.

So I’m unreasonable now?

That the deflection brings to mind the possibility that maybe there was no concept behind the assertion should not be surprising. Asking about that possibility should not then be unaskable as "personal".

And now the good faith suggestion is that I just say things with no concept behind them?

But, we can go back to the original question - when posting the assertion "The common view of d&d players is that ‘dm decides’ enhances the game...," what concept of 'DM decides' was involved? If there was no specific concept involved, could that fact be made clear to us instead?

As you’ve often said, it’s more about people and right now resolving the seemingly personal things said/implied about me are all I really care about in this interaction.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

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"

Well, I can certainly tell you what I think of when I hear "DM decides."

I think "DM whim, which may or may not have any relationship whatsoever to anything the DM has previously said, anything that is mathematically sound, or anything that is entertaining for anyone besides the DM."

So many DMs who advocate for this style talk about DM trust. I never--ever--see them talking about trusting their players to be upstanding participants. Matter of fact, I find exactly the opposite; they frequently presume the worst of their players, expecting them to be manipulative, deceptive, malcontent, and disruptive unless firmly put in their place.

I find this asymmetry bitterly hilarious. Only one side can demand trust--and, incidentally, it's the side that has all the power. Only one side can question the motives of the other--and it's the side that controls nearly everything. Only one side can unilaterally declare whatever they want, whenever they want, for as long as they want, and change their mind on a moment's notice for any reason or no reason at all.

 

[tetrasodium]

Well, I can certainly tell you what I think of when I hear "DM decides."

I think "DM whim, which may or may not have any relationship whatsoever to anything the DM has previously said, anything that is mathematically sound, or anything that is entertaining for anyone besides the DM."

So many DMs who advocate for this style talk about DM trust. I never--ever--see them talking about trusting their players to be upstanding participants. Matter of fact, I find exactly the opposite; they frequently presume the worst of their players, expecting them to be manipulative, deceptive, malcontent, and disruptive unless firmly put in their place.

I find this asymmetry bitterly hilarious. Only one side can demand trust--and, incidentally, it's the side that has all the power. Only one side can question the motives of the other--and it's the side that controls nearly everything. Only one side can unilaterally declare whatever they want, whenever they want, for as long as they want, and change their mind on a moment's notice for any reason or no reason at all.

That's the quiet part. Unfortunately that mindset leads to players behaving like this/this and feeling outraged if the DM ever pushes back. Unfortunately it's also a mindset frequently present in the design of 2014's core rules & we've not seen indications of a correction to that

 

[EzekielRaiden]

That's the quiet part. Unfortunately that mindset leads to players behaving like this/this and feeling outraged if the DM ever pushes back. Unfortunately it's also a mindset frequently present in the design of 2014's core rules & we've not seen indications of a correction to that

No, it doesn't lead to either of those things. People being unreasonable leads to those things.

You're basically saying, "Players can't be allowed to push back, because if they do, they'll get angry if the DM ever pushes back."

We cannot have one side allowed to act with impunity while the other is not allowed to ever defend itself or criticize what happens.

 

[tetrasodium]

No, it doesn't lead to either of those things. People being unreasonable leads to those things.

You're basically saying, "Players can't be allowed to push back, because if they do, they'll get angry if the DM ever pushes back."

We cannot have one side allowed to act with impunity while the other is not allowed to ever defend itself or criticize what happens.

No the trouble is that you literally described the quiet part of the dog whistle and made clear that it includes a presumption of negative DM stereotypes as true. There is nothing to discuss about the GM pushing back because the GM is already tarred & feathered as guilty even before they actually do anything.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

No the trouble is that you literally described the quiet part of the dog whistle and made clear that it includes a presumption of negative DM stereotypes as true. There is nothing to discuss about the GM pushing back because the GM is already tarred & feathered as guilty even before they actually do anything.

I've seen those negative DM stereotypes as true.

Anyone saying, "Don't you trust me?" has to actually EARN that trust. Just sitting behind the DM screen does not automatically mean you deserve to be trusted. You have to do the work to SHOW that you should be trusted. I have personally seen multiple DMs who were not willing to do that work--but demanded that trust.

 

[tetrasodium]

I've seen those negative DM stereotypes as true.

You are not Jim Carrey or Morgan Freeman & that loops back to the difference between "possible" and "presumption"

Anyone saying, "Don't you trust me?" has to actually EARN that trust. Just sitting behind the DM screen does not automatically mean you deserve to be trusted. You have to do the work to SHOW that you should be trusted. I have personally seen multiple DMs who were not willing to do that work--but demanded that trust.

You said the quiet part of the dog whistle out loud... The GM is presumed guilty in it before even getting to that point. 2014 was made with multiple rules channeling that sentiment pretty hard and so far we've seen no indication of 2024 changing course on those, if anything we have seen evidence via UAs that 2024 will double down on it with those rules.

 

[Micah Sweet]

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!

I always liked Lewis Pulsipher's views on gaming. Pretty solid match up for me in most areas.

 

[Micah Sweet]

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.

Admittedly that does sound completely awesome.