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

[Lanefan]

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.

This is interesting, and explains a lot.

Part of the GM role as I see it is to be the provider and facilitator of surprises-in-the-fiction for the players; which often means I don't get to be surprised myself as I already know what's (potentially) coming. It's a downside of the GMing gig, but so be it; and of course sometimes the players are going to surprise me anyway with what they do, so all is not completely lost.

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

It shouldn't. That said, neither the GM nor the players should be able to expect their cool-things suggestions to work if said suggestions egregiously violate the established rules and-or precedents already set in that game/campaign (the 30-foot pole-vault in the OP being an example of such egregious violation).

 

[Maxperson]

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.

I'll say straight out that I trust my players. Over the years there have been dozens and dozens and dozens and dozens of times where the "bad" player has been discussed and I have posted that I don't have to worry because my players won't do that. Those are instances of me saying that I trust my players.

That said, the primary reason why you hear trust the DM so often is because the DM has a very different role. That role involves 1) the DM having far more power and authority than the players, 2) the DM having far more knowledge of the situation at hand than the players, and 3) the DM making decisions based not on whim, but on reason with that knowledge in mind.

If the DM is running a fighter and the fighter in the middle of combat does something that fighters cannot do, the answer is not to yell, "Bad DM! I don't trust you because you did that on a whim!" It's to trust that the DM has a reason that you are not aware of that explains what just happened. You just haven't discovered it yet, and may never discover it depending on how the situation plays out.

The "DM decides" is rarely a whim, and the vast majority of time based in reason. The opposite of whim. You not being aware of the reason(s) does not turn it into a whim. To assume that it's whim is not acting in good faith.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

I'll say straight out that I trust my players.

Sincerely: Good. You would be a surprising exception then.

That said, the primary reason why you hear trust the DM so often is because the DM has a very different role.

The differences you cite are not mandatory. There are other ways to implement the DM role that do not cash out exactly as you described.

If the DM is running a fighter and the fighter in the middle of combat does something that fighters cannot do, the answer is not to yell, "Bad DM! I don't trust you because you did that on a whim!"

Okay, but--to use the exact same argument others have used above, but in the other direction--that's just people being bad players. That sort of response is NEVER justified. Ever. Period.

But that doesn't mean one must then conclude, "Players CANNOT EVER question DM judgment or be suspicious because they've seen something that doesn't add up."

It's to trust that the DM has a reason that you are not aware of that explains what just happened. You just haven't discovered it yet, and may never discover it depending on how the situation plays out.

That's not acceptable. I'm sorry, it's just not. "I have no accountability, and you cannot ever expect to know whether I am accountable or not" is NOT acceptable. Period.

wThe "DM decides" is rarely a whim, and the vast majority of time based in reason. The opposite of whim. You not being aware of the reason(s) does not turn it into a whim. To assume that it's whim is not acting in good faith.

Okay. Never ever telling what the reason is isn't acting in good faith either. There needs to be reciprocity. Authority without responsibility is unacceptable.

 

[Maxperson]

Sincerely: Good. You would be a surprising exception then.

I don't think so. I just think it's not something that doesn't come up often. Typically the threads are about the bad DM or bad DMing, not bad players. And even when it is about bad players, the discussion is about the rare player that is a disruption, cheater, etc. and so doesn't focus on the players at the typical DM's table. I think there is a silent majority here.

The differences you cite are not mandatory. There are other ways to implement the DM role that do not cash out exactly as you described.

I agree. They are the default differences, though, which is why I said that. Of course the DM/group can change how things are played and the roles are divided.

Okay, but--to use the exact same argument others have used above, but in the other direction--that's just people being bad players. That sort of response is NEVER justified. Ever. Period.

I don't understand this. The PCs don't/shouldn't have things that the DM is not aware of, so I don't see how it can go the other way. At least in this regard.

But that doesn't mean one must then conclude, "Players CANNOT EVER question DM judgment or be suspicious because they've seen something that doesn't add up."

I agree. Just like I default to trusting new players until they show me that they cheat or disrupt the game, the DM should be trusted until he shows that he cannot be. Over time it will be apparent if a DM is untrustworthy.

That's not acceptable. I'm sorry, it's just not. "I have no accountability, and you cannot ever expect to know whether I am accountable or not" is NOT acceptable. Period.

I think you are reading more into that statement than is there. I'm talking about if in game the gameplay takes the group away from the situation and there is no in game opportunity to find out, not if the DM is hiding it so that they can't find out.

Okay. Never ever telling what the reason is isn't acting in good faith either. There needs to be reciprocity. Authority without responsibility is unacceptable.

I didn't say to never tell the reason. I said they may not find out the reason, which is true. Sometimes they have the desire and time to dig into what happened and sometimes they lack the desire and/or time. Other times they may have the desire and time, but fail the rolls or to look in the right direction. There's nothing nefarious about what I said.

 

[pemerton]

We still make decisions, the main issue between D20 games and PbtA is what scope of change those decisions can affect.

This is not accurate. It's like saying that the main difference between soccer and AFL is the size of the field.

 

[pemerton]

why can't players in D&D also suggest cool things?

I don't know. I was replying to a poster who referred to the GM having the ability to suggest cool things.

 

[pemerton]

This whole conversation has meandered ... well a lot. As Obvious man would say, different games will play differently. On the other hand this all started with the assertion that one type of game had a way to resolve everything and that D&D does not.

I didn't refer to a "type" of game. I referred to a particular RPG: Apocalypse World.

And I conjectured more than asserted that D&D 5e does not have a way to resolve all declared actions, based on the fact that (i) many 5e players seem to say this, and (ii) many 5e players seem to take different views about what the way is to resolve a wide category of "non core" action declarations, and (iii) the only mooted way for resolving any declared actions - GM decides - is often rejected by 5e players as a mid-description of the game. (Although in this thread, multiple 5e players seem to endorse it.)

I need a small clarification - Is 'GM decides' when the GM actually decides or is it just that he has the liberty to decide? While closely related those 2 concepts are quite different in my mind.

Right, that's GM decides regardless of any other details, but depending on the other details around it could easily be an example of a railroad or could simply be an example of the DM having already codified in 'secret notes' what the NPC's motivation is for betraying the PC's (maybe the BBEG has his kids and is threatening them if he doesn't betray the PC's). In this situation the PCs could detect that something is 'off' with this guy, possibly gain the info about his kids being kidnapped and rescue them which subverts the betrayal.

Though, you've written that module play isn't GM decides and since secret notes can be viewed as a stand in for module, so maybe the later scenario above wouldn't be an example of 'GM decides' to you.

Which depending on some of the nuances above, sounds more like a description of a railroad than normal play.

I don't think I've written that DL-ish/AP-ish module play isn't GM decides: generally, it's a special case of GM decides based on "secret notes".

If the GM can, on the basis of secret notes, have the befriended NPC nevertheless betray the PCs, then the system is 100% GM decides in my view. This comes out in your framing: the players have to declare more actions to detect that something is "off", to gain info about the kidnapped children, etc. As opposed to (just as one example) the successful befriending by the PCs meaning that the NPC shares with them his fears for his children (just as one might with friends).

what if the GM decides a few things (via some other method than whim) and other times decides dice need to be rolled to decide. Is the game still 'gm decides' if the gm is asking dice to be rolled for most situations?

What follows from dice rolls? And what rules/constraints govern the GM's decision-making?

If the GM is free to disregard successful checks - as in the NPC betrayal example - then the dice rolls aren't actually moving the procedure away from GM decides. They're just a gloss or twist on it.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

If the GM is free to disregard successful checks - as in the NPC betrayal example - then the dice rolls aren't actually moving the procedure away from GM decides. They're just a gloss or twist on it.

Precisely. Dice that have no binding force are merely a suggestion, at best. Dice that the DM can directly defy whenever they think it's warranted are not even suggestions--they're set dressing.

 

[Maxperson]

Precisely. Dice that have no binding force are merely a suggestion, at best. Dice that the DM can directly defy whenever they think it's warranted are not even suggestions--they're set dressing.

Well, no. Those are both the exact same thing. A suggestion with no binding force. Just because it's the DM ignoring the suggestion does not stop it from being a suggestion. Heck, the DM ignoring the suggested outcome from the dice is RAW in 5e.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

Well, no. Those are both the exact same thing.

They emphatically are not. Set dressing is purely aesthetic. At least a suggestion has the (incredibly minimal) weight of being inherently serious, while set dressing has zero gameplay presence beyond being set dressing.

A suggestion with no binding force. Just because it's the DM ignoring the suggestion does not stop it from being a suggestion.

I did not say it did. I said, verbatim, "Dice that the DM can directly defy whenever they think it's warranted are not even suggestions--they're set dressing." I meant every word of it.

Heck, the DM ignoring the suggested outcome from the dice is RAW in 5e.

Yes. I'm aware.

I vehemently disapprove. Specifically because that--that exact, specific thing--is the active support for really, really bad forms of DMing.