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

[pemerton]

Well, that kind of assumes anyone ever reads the DMG for any version of D&D.

No it doesn't. I didn't say anything at all about the DMG, let alone assume that anyone reads it. I pointed out that, since at least the late 1970s, there have been competing ideas as to what makes for a good GM, even in the context of GMing D&D. There is no single thing that is "good GMing".

Certainly different games will give you a different overall experience

<snip>

The rules can only shape the experience in general.

What will shape the experience is the procedures actually used in play. D&D has quite a long tradition of relying on procedures that are not actually written down in the rulebooks - the only two versions of D&D that come close to writing down all the intended/envisaged procedures are Moldvay Basic and 4e D&D.

But in any event, this is not really relevant to what I said in the post you quoted. What I said is that I am 100% confident that system can help GMing. By "system" I mean procedures of play - that is, how it is worked out who says what in the course of RPG play. For instance, if I as GM want to follow my players' leads in framing adversity and establishing consequences, then I want procedures of play that facilitate that. Moldvay Basic doesn't really spell out any such procedures - to the contrary, its procedures are focused overwhelmingly on establishing adversity and framing by reference to the GM's pre-prepared dungeon map and key. 4e D&D, on the other hand, does spell out some such procedures. Torchbearer 2e spells out more of them, and more clearly.

 

[pemerton]

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.

I'm not very familiar with BitD. But who establishes what happens on a success?

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.

Who establishes what happens on a success? Or on a failure? And according to what principles?

I can answer those questions for Apocalypse World (if the move in question is Seduce/Manipulate) or for Torchbearer 2e (if we are discussing resolution of a Convince conflict). You are the one who, not far upthread, suggested that the answer, for 5e D&D, is that the GM decides. If the GM decides what happens on a success and what happens on a failure, to me that seems sufficient to say that it is the GM's vision that is determining what happens in the fiction.

 

[pemerton]

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

<snip>

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.

Obviously I cannot speak for @EzekielRaiden. But to me, it seems that once we accept that who has narrative control and how the decisions points are made will change with the system used then the notion that all RPGing is basically the same has been blown out of the water! Given that RPGing really is nothing but the process of making decisions about the content of a shared fiction, if we agree that that process can vary, we are agreeing that RPGing can be very different in how it is done.

Exact implementation and process doesn't really matter

Doesn't matter to what? I can tell you that it matters profoundly to me. I have zero interest, as a GM or as a player, in RPGing in which the content of the fiction is all directed by the GM. And there are other RPGers who have zero interest in anything but that!

Given we're talking about a game of making decisions about the content of a shared fiction, how could it not matter what the process is for doing that. I mean, no one thinks that the differences between soccer and AFL football don't matter, even though both a team ball sports that involve kicking a ball through a goal to try and score points.

 

[pemerton]

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?

Please don’t make this personal.

Huh?

Anyway, I can tell you what I mean by "GM decides" - I mean that the GM decides what happens next in the fiction, with relatively little constraint arising from material and ideas introduced by the players. An example: if the players decide that their PCs try and befriend a NPC, and the GM is at liberty to decide, based on their own private thinking about the fiction, that this NPC can't be befriended.

Another example: if the players decide that their PCs try and befriend a PC, and succeed on whatever check is set to resolve this, and the GM is at liberty to decide, based on their own private thinking about the fiction, that the NPC will betray the PCs anyway even though the NPC feels friendly towards them.

When the GM makes these sorts of decisions - ie they establish the content of the fiction with relatively little constraint arising from material and ideas introduced by the players - then I describe their vision as that which determines the shared fiction.

 

[pemerton]

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.")

That's probably more far-reaching than what I have in mind by the phrase.

For instance, if the GM is deciding what happens next by reference to an adventure that has been written out in the fairly traditional style (see many, probably most, D&D modules since DL) then the GM is not deciding based on whim, but they are still deciding and as a result it is their vision which is determining the shared fiction.

If this is done well - by the GM, or by the adventure writer (if that is not the GM) - then it should be entertaining for the players as well as the GM. But this is not the sort of entertainment that I play RPGs for.

 

[pemerton]

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

I find those essays interesting, and I re-read them from time to time. I started a thread about them around a decade ago now: DMing philosophy, from Lewis Pulsipher

I share Pulsipher's dislike for the "GM novel" approach to D&D, but don't share his preference for "wargame" D&D. As I mentioned upthread here, and also in the decade-old thread, since the late 1970s new methods have been developed which create the possibility of non-GM-driven-yet-story-esque RPGing.

 

[Micah Sweet]

I find those essays interesting, and I re-read them from time to time. I started a thread about them around a decade ago now: DMing philosophy, from Lewis Pulsipher

I share Pulsipher's dislike for the "GM novel" approach to D&D, but don't share his preference for "wargame" D&D. As I mentioned upthread here, and also in the decade-old thread, since the late 1970s new methods have been developed which create the possibility of non-GM-driven-yet-story-esque RPGing.

Oh, absolutely there are many perfectly valid ways of playing. I simply prefer a more wargame style similar to what is referred to as "classic" play in some circles.

 

[Smackpixi]

Anyway, I can tell you what I mean by "GM decides" - I mean that the GM decides what happens next in the fiction, with relatively little constraint arising from material and ideas introduced by the players. An example: if the players decide that their PCs try and befriend a NPC, and the GM is at liberty to decide, based on their own private thinking about the fiction, that this NPC can't be befriended.

But that is all just pointing out that a DM can be bad. A better one would handle it differently. The check against unlimited DM douchebaggery is the players warning them they’re a jerk, and then abandoning the game when they don’t. Or five kids playing in a group and with no option to escape, duh, Keith doesn’t get to dm any more, we’ll figure something else out.

I didn’t read the past 67 pages, but man do I love rules and having certainty about stuff, but come on man, when all the stuff plays out, and there’s one guy in the room with the ability to say, wouldn’t it be cooler if this happened instead, and everyone goes yeah, and he goes then that’s what happened, and everyone’s like yeah, and what’s the point hating on that?

The rule of cool is on the guy with the power being cool, of course. If they’re not cool, game’s gonna be bad for so many other reasons.

 

[pemerton]

But that is all just pointing out that a DM can be bad. A better one would handle it differently. The check against unlimited DM douchebaggery is the players warning them they’re a jerk, and then abandoning the game when they don’t.

GM's being "bad" is a red herring.

I'm not talking about someone's character or personality; I'm talking about the procedures of play.

The reason I don't like "GM decides" as a resolution method is not because I hate GMs - most of my RPGing involves me being a GM. It's because I want the fiction to be a surprise to me as much as to everyone else.

when all the stuff plays out, and there’s one guy in the room with the ability to say, wouldn’t it be cooler if this happened instead, and everyone goes yeah, and he goes then that’s what happened, and everyone’s like yeah, and what’s the point hating on that?

Why should the ability to suggest that cool things happen be limited to the GM?

 

[Oofta]

No it doesn't. I didn't say anything at all about the DMG, let alone assume that anyone reads it. I pointed out that, since at least the late 1970s, there have been competing ideas as to what makes for a good GM, even in the context of GMing D&D. There is no single thing that is "good GMing".

What will shape the experience is the procedures actually used in play. D&D has quite a long tradition of relying on procedures that are not actually written down in the rulebooks - the only two versions of D&D that come close to writing down all the intended/envisaged procedures are Moldvay Basic and 4e D&D.

But in any event, this is not really relevant to what I said in the post you quoted. What I said is that I am 100% confident that system can help GMing. By "system" I mean procedures of play - that is, how it is worked out who says what in the course of RPG play. For instance, if I as GM want to follow my players' leads in framing adversity and establishing consequences, then I want procedures of play that facilitate that. Moldvay Basic doesn't really spell out any such procedures - to the contrary, its procedures are focused overwhelmingly on establishing adversity and framing by reference to the GM's pre-prepared dungeon map and key. 4e D&D, on the other hand, does spell out some such procedures. Torchbearer 2e spells out more of them, and more clearly.

A) Apparently my attempt at humor fell flat.
B) People have been ignoring the official rules text of D&D and doing their own thing since the inception of the game. It's why we have D&D and not a tactical wargame.
C) I simply disagree that it will make a difference for many people. I'm not even convinced there are that many truly bad DMs. There are inexperienced DMs, DMs with styles I don't care for, DMs who could improve. Actually that last one includes just about everyone, including me. But truly bad DMs usually find that they can't maintain a group so it's a self-correcting problem. Rules and procedures will never improve someone's ability to represent scenarios evocatively, will never alter personality type, will not suddenly make someone better at engaging. People that acknowledge their weaknesses and look to improve already have far more aid at their fingertips than we've ever had before.

Hopefully the 2024 DMG will do a better job of guidance for new DMs (it could hardly do much worse), I just don't think it makes much of a difference. But I don't see a reason to argue about it any more, this is just on spin cycle.