D&D General Playstyle vs Mechanics

[Xetheral]

There are a lot of ways to arrange the relationship between authority over backstory/setting and authority over scene/situation that will preserve the "externality" of obstacles. The sort of approach advocated by @Emirikol, @Oofta and @Micah Sweet in this thread is just one of them.

I entirely agree. But that's orthogonal to my purpose in providing the example, which was to respond to @hawkeyefan's request for an example of where a DM exercising control isn't "about" the control. The DM exercising control to try to provide an experience desired by the players doesn't become "about" control just because there exist other methods to provide some or all of the desired experience.

 

[Maxperson]

I don't know... I can see a lot of potential for conflict between that level of DM control and the players being very self-directed.

Sure, but why would they be playing together? That DM will find players who aren't that self-directed and the self-directed players will find more player facing games to join.

 

[hawkeyefan]

I was responding to your request for an example of how DMs exercising control can be about something other than the control--in this case, providing an experience sought by the players. The example is just as valid regardless of your opinion on the experience sought and whether other approaches might provide some or all of the same experience.

Yes, but if that same result can be produced in other ways, then the means by which it is produced seem to be more important to the participants than you're describing.

Sure, but why would they be playing together? That DM will find players who aren't that self-directed and the self-directed players will find more player facing games to join.

Well, I was responding to the idea that this approach would deliver the player freedom desired. I'm not sure it would, and even if it did, I don't think it's necessary for that kind of result.

Aside from that, more generally... I've played games with plenty of people with whom I don't see eye to eye on everything gaming related. Most of them are my friends. I have a good friend of some thirty years who approaches play very much along the lines that many have described in this thread... high level of DM authority, players exploring the setting as their characters, etc.

I can still play in that kind of game. It may not be my preference... it may not excite me the way the prospect of other games might... but that doesn't mean I can't play in it. If I do, I have a good idea of what I'm getting myself into. But even still, there may be instances where conflicts come up. It happens.

And this happens in games all the time. It's perfectly normal... sometimes, expectations on how something will be handled don't align, even when people share the same general view on gaming. It still happens. Plenty of people have fewer options for gaming than many of us do... some may need to play at a local store and are therefore beholden to whoever GMs those games. And so on.

 

[Maxperson]

Well, I was responding to the idea that this approach would deliver the player freedom desired. I'm not sure it would, and even if it did, I don't think it's necessary for that kind of result.

The post you were responding to wasn't really about player freedom so much as tailoring the game to the player's desires without the player doing it himself or having it feel like the DM is just giving the player whatever he wants, because a lot of us don't want to do it ourselves. It's pretty much impossible for me to do it myself without feeling like I'm just giving me what I want, when I want it. I need a DM for that.

Even so, that's a tough line for a DM to walk. It's hard to give the player what he wants without it feeling like you are just saying yes.

Aside from that, more generally... I've played games with plenty of people with whom I don't see eye to eye on everything gaming related. Most of them are my friends. I have a good friend of some thirty years who approaches play very much along the lines that many have described in this thread... high level of DM authority, players exploring the setting as their characters, etc.

I can still play in that kind of game. It may not be my preference... it may not excite me the way the prospect of other games might... but that doesn't mean I can't play in it. If I do, I have a good idea of what I'm getting myself into. But even still, there may be instances where conflicts come up. It happens.

And this happens in games all the time. It's perfectly normal... sometimes, expectations on how something will be handled don't align, even when people share the same general view on gaming. It still happens. Plenty of people have fewer options for gaming than many of us do... some may need to play at a local store and are therefore beholden to whoever GMs those games. And so on.

I think there's a pretty big difference between playing with players for whom you don't see eye to eye on everything, and playing with other players where there is a gulf so wide that it will cause or is likely to cause conflict. The latter should not be played with. The former I play with all the time.

Going with one of the topics at hand, of my four players one of them absolutely loves world lore and when I bring it into play, two of them like the lore when it's pointed out(usually by that first player), but isn't invested enough to learn the lore themselves in order to recognize it, and one of them doesn't give a rat's behind about the lore. They don't see eye to eye on the lore, but the difference isn't one that will cause any sort of conflict, so it works out just fine.

If I had a player who hated world lore and got upset when it was introduced, that would cause conflict and he'd have to leave the game since the others don't have that issue.

 

[mamba]

How many people in the here and now know their local postal carrier by name, or the UPS and FedEx drivers whose routes their lives intersect with? Do you think not knowing those names keeps people from being able to use the mail, or the big shippers?

it’s not like you drop a letter in a mailbox, you do not need a background for that

 

[mamba]

Blithe negation is crap GMing. Good job, well done, have a day.

thanks, I will, do not really care what you have to say on the subject after you compared it to UPS

 

[mamba]

How does a character knowing people interfere with anything like world-building or the setting?

I mean, we got to the point where we either need frequent divine intervention or a universe spanning UPS to justify the feature, seems pretty self-explanatory how it does

 

[mamba]

Rappers are the new rock stars.

doesn’t mean I have to like their output

 

[mamba]

Don't the rules associated with D&D's 'most successful years' give players the ability to decide when their character is lucky, when they're inspired, and all the player-authored worldbuilding background traits that we were talking about?

they corrected that error in the 2024 book

 

[mamba]

Who's to say what people are responding to? All we really know is that WotC makes a lot of money off 5e and 5.5 D&D as they present it. I wouldn't make any assumptions as to exactly why and what they like best about such that they are willing to throw money at WotC for it.

given that they removed these things in the 2024 rules, I'd go as far as saying that they were not that popular to begin with