Different philosophies concerning Rules Heavy and Rule Light RPGs.

[Umbran]

Tricking the players is I think different than moving the goalposts in play.

What goalposts? If we are going to be using sports analogies, then we probably need to talk about how having the referee also being the captain of the opposing team with no accountability or budget cap as to the content of the opposition is intrinsically unfair and a conflict of interest.

But, if we don't have that conversation, we still are not specifically talking about the GM changing details of something the PCs have already engaged in.

You turn a corner, and there's a goblin. What difference does it make if that goblin was written down three weeks ago, or the GM got an idea for a cool goblin encounter just a moment ago?

A player being deceived can in theory see through the deception, provided the DM is sticking to their prep and treating it as established fact in the setting, whether the players are aware of it or not.

I mean, yeah, tell that to the player who was not told of the existence of rot grubs after their first encounter with them. Player's gotten hammered before for not trying to seek information before engaging. Tries to play smart, puts an ear to a door before entering, and their character dies. Totally fair, that.

Early D&D and its modules are full of that sort of thing.

 

[Micah Sweet]

What goalposts? If we are going to be using sports analogies, then we probably need to talk about how having the referee also being the captain of the opposing team with no accountability or budget cap as to the content of the opposition is intrinsically unfair and a conflict of interest.

But, if we don't have that conversation, we still are not specifically talking about the GM changing details of something the PCs have already engaged in.

You turn a corner, and there's a goblin. What difference does it make if that goblin was written down three weeks ago, or the GM got an idea for a cool goblin encounter just a moment ago?



I mean, yeah, tell that to the player who was not told of the existence of rot grubs after their first encounter with them. Player's gotten hammered before for not trying to seek information before engaging. Tries to play smart, puts an ear to a door before entering, and their character dies. Totally fair, that.

Early D&D and its modules are full of that sort of thing.

You as player might feel it is unfair, and admittedly the sort of thing you're describing should be telegraphed better if you don't want to come off as a jerk, but so long as you are keeping to your prep in play it isn't actually unfair.

 

[soviet]

There are several move related issues where the PbtA GM can be fudging...

1. in a PC's narration, the GM calling something a move that really doesn't match the move as defined.
2. selecting a GM move that is not appropriate to the existing fiction. EG: NPC is established as a pacifist, player fails on a seduction move, GM goes straight to physical harm.
3. forcing the timing of PC narrations to be faster than certain players can handle
4. ending a scene because the GM wants story control of scene framing.
5. not calling people on crossing lines/veils

Literally none of these are fudging.

The essence of fudging is that the players can't see what you've done. A 20 gets turned to a 19 behind the screen, or the monster's hit points suddenly change on the notepad or in the GM's head.

All of your examples are bad GMing, sure, but they are visible. They can be challenged.

 

[Celebrim]

I do the opposite. In most of my games (as player or GM) we 'discover' who the characters are during play. Sometimes a player will have a particular backstory in mind which they share, but sometimes it just starts with "I feel like playing an orc cleric/priest type character..." and 10 or 20 sessions later that character has developed a whole persona.

I have no idea what this means. I recognize "discover who the character is in play" is a popular statement, but not what process of play is actually being described.

a) Do you mean that most characters in a traditional RPG are beginning their adventures and are relatively inexperienced and as such quite quickly the story of the character in play becomes the majority of their story?
b) Do you mean that at any point a player can suggest some new element of their backstory which doesn't contradict any revealed fact about the player?
c) Do you mean what a character actually is just the transcript of play, and that they catch phrases or actions associated with that play becomes the defining aspects of the character?

Because if you mean those things, I don't agree that you are doing "the opposite". And if you aren't doing those things, then what you are doing isn't obvious to me. "Leia was Luke's sister all along?"

 

[Emerikol]

It probably shouldn't be surprising that among people who like heavier rule systems, that you're going to have more people that actually care about the application of the rules enough to argue them at least some times. Whether that gets to the toxic state that is implied by "rules lawyer" most of the time is more arguable (as is how far that has to get before its problematic, as some people seem to apply that to anyone who is willing to argue them at all).

During the game session, I do. We can revisit after the session and if I feel my ruling was egregiously bad then something can be changed. Arguments at the table are time wasters and fun ruiners.

 

[hawkeyefan]

You as player might feel it is unfair, and admittedly the sort of thing you're describing should be telegraphed better if you don't want to come off as a jerk, but so long as you are keeping to your prep in play it isn't actually unfair.

I would say that it’s still pretty unfair. I mean, it’s a game. The more that’s unknown by the players and the slimmer the chance they are able to learn it, along with the severity of the consequence, all of that plays a big part.

Now… fairness may not be a concern. I mean, many would argue that the world’s not fair, and so they design their dungeons or other encounters accordingly. But I think that not caring about fairness is a different thing than if a game is actually fair.

 

[Umbran]

I have no idea what this means. I recognize "discover who the character is in play" is a popular statement, but not what process of play is actually being describe.

That would be because discovering who the character is in play isn't a single clearly defined process of play. It is a combination of several elements that lead the player from having some numbers on a sheet, to an image in mind of a person that they are playing.

 

[Bill Zebub]

I have no idea what this means. I recognize "discover who the character is in play" is a popular statement, but not what process of play is actually being describe.

a) Do you mean that most characters in a traditional RPG are beginning their adventures and are relatively inexperienced and as such quite quickly the story of the character in play becomes the majority of their story?
b) Do you mean that at any point a player can suggest some new element of their backstory which doesn't contradict any revealed fact about the player?
c) Do you mean what a character actually is just the transcript of play, and that they catch phrases or actions associated with that play becomes the defining aspects of the characte?

Because if you mean those things, I don't agree that you are doing "the opposite". And if you aren't doing those things, then what you are doing isn't obvious to me. "Leia was Luke's sister all along?"

Meaning we don't spend a lot of time worrying about backstories or consistency. A player can make up something new about their personality or backstory and if it contradicts something we all roll with it. Or collaboratively suggest ways to resolve the apparent paradox. Eventually it settles into something the player enjoys playing, and a story they enjoy telling.

Or not. Sometimes a character ends up with an extensive backstory and unique personality/motivations/goals/etc.. But other times it never gets beyond, "Um....elf with a bow?"

P.S. Anecdotally, I do think there is a direct correlation between this kind of character growth and how attached the player becomes to the character.

 

[Bill Zebub]

That would be because discovering who the character is in play isn't a single clearly defined process of play. It is a combination of several elements that lead the player from having some numbers on a sheet, to an image in mind of a person that they are playing.

More eloquent and concise than I managed.

 

[Umbran]

You as player might feel it is unfair, and admittedly the sort of thing you're describing should be telegraphed better if you don't want to come off as a jerk, but so long as you are keeping to your prep in play it isn't actually unfair.

So, at this point, I feel like this is getting circular. The only determining characteristics you seem to be asserting are that following prep is fair, and not following prep is unfair, but have delivered no underlying reasoning for that to be true.

Repeating it over and over does not enlighten us, or make it a more accurate statement.