GM fiat - an illustration

[robertsconley]

These seem very similar - perhaps identical - to what I posted upthread. Are there any differences that you see?

In terms of format not much. I have folders of handwritten notes before I transitioned to word processors around 1992.

However, my experience with this approach, especially regarding the comment below, has been quite different, and led me to a different conclusion about its utility:

My experience with this sort of game was very similar to what @AbdulAlhazred has described - keeping track of all the moving parts, and integrating them into play, is a lot of work and to me it was not clear what the payoff was. I was doing this because RPG manuals that I'd read told me it was the "right" way to GM a campaign, but I became increasingly doubtful of the utility.

 

[Bedrockgames]

Do you think it would be good to have a common, facilitated lexicon so people could talk about these expectations by pointing towards at least somewhat defined possibility space? Or are things like "My game is 70% roleplaying/30% combat, and I love taking player's backstories into account" clear enough to roll the dice (pun intended) on using up some of your life?

No. I think plain language is better. Specialized language is hard. I have enormous difficulty following many posters in this thread not because of the complexity of ideas, but because the language they use. I wouldn’t want people to have to learn something complex on the level of music theory (which is how complicated a lot of the language in this thread sounds to me, just to talk about what they want in a session of play. Also I think specialized language will tend to reflect the style preferences of the people who develop it. I think people to bring their own way if speaking about games to the table so the real communications starts with ‘what do you mean by X?”. Most people will say things like “my games are 70 percent roleplaying, 30 percent combat and I take player backgrounds into account and I think that works far better than new jargon

 

[zakael19]

No. I think plain language is better. Specialized language is hard. I have enormous difficulty following many posters in this thread not because of the complexity of ideas, but because the language they use. I wouldn’t want people to have to learn something complex on the level of music theory (which is how complicated a lot of the language in this thread sounds to me, just to talk about what they want in a session of play. Also I think specialized language will tend to reflect the style preferences of the people who develop it. I think people to bring their own way if speaking about games to the table so the real communications starts with ‘what do you mean by X?”. Most people will say things like “my games are 70 percent roleplaying, 30 percent combat and I take player backgrounds into account and I think that works far better than new jargon

Facilitated lexicon means “when we talk about Sandbox gameplay, this tends to look like X Y Z. To have a good experience, generally players should be ready to blah blah; and GMs should consider how they’re going to &etc.”

Again, the new OSR books do this; I don’t think it’s all that much of a stretch to ask for the mainline too - so that the hobby would have a starting point to talk from.

And by talking about what the GM role comprises, and what players should do to help that, you could go just have a nice open discussion during session 0 by pointing at the book and adding your own 2 cents.

 

[Bedrockgames]

Facilitated lexicon means “when we talk about Sandbox gameplay, this tends to look like X Y Z. To have a good experience, generally players should be ready to blah blah; and GMs should consider how they’re going to &etc.”

Again, the new OSR books do this; I don’t think it’s all that much of a stretch to ask for the mainline too - so that the hobby would have a starting point to talk from.

And by talking about what the GM role comprises, and what players should do to help that, you could go just have a nice open discussion during session 0 by pointing at the book and adding your own 2 cents.

If the lexicon is using common terms in use to describe basic styles of play, sure. I the lexicon is the complex type of language we have seen on this thread, then no, I think that would be bad for the book include

 

[Bedrockgames]

Again, the new OSR books do this; I don’t think it’s all that much of a stretch to ask for the mainline too - so that the hobby would have a starting point to talk from.

but the issue is OSR books are a very specific style. If you have that as the default in core D&D, it isn't going to work for people who are running the game as adventure paths or people who are running the game like a Matt mercer campaign. I am all for them breaking down different adventure structures in the book (provided it isn't advocating for one in particular). But I think D&D's advantage is it can appeal to a wide set of preferences.

 

[Bedrockgames]

And by talking about what the GM role comprises, and what players should do to help that, you could go just have a nice open discussion during session 0 by pointing at the book and adding your own 2 cents.

My issue is I would rather the core D&D books not be overly prescriptive. I think going over play styles is fine. Common language is fine. When it comes to playstyels I think language like 70 percent roleplaying, 30 percent roleplaying, is better than an overly engineered lexicon that creates too much new jargon to memorize (I favor adopting terms that naturally crop up and avoiding coining new ones unless it really proves necessary).

 

[zakael19]

but the issue is OSR books are a very specific style. If you have that as the default in core D&D, it isn't going to work for people who are running the game as adventure paths or people who are running the game like a Matt mercer campaign. I am all for them breaking down different adventure structures in the book (provided it isn't advocating for one in particular). But I think D&D's advantage is it can appeal to a wide set of preferences.

Which is why I said that the fact that Dolmenwood/HMTW/etc incorporate a concise set of best practices for players and GMs for that style of play (and the 2014 DMG at least talked about like...4 main "styles of play" in incredibly broad terms from what I remember and sandbox was one?) shows that you can, in fact, talk about what play looks like at the table with guidelines even for "D&D."

My issue is I would rather the core D&D books not be overly prescriptive. I think going over play styles is fine. Common language is fine. When it comes to playstyels I think language like 70 percent roleplaying, 30 percent roleplaying, is better than an overly engineered lexicon that creates too much new jargon to memorize (I favor adopting terms that naturally crop up and avoiding coining new ones unless it really proves necessary).

Dude, I'm not even asking for AW1e style "if you dont follow this agenda and principles you're flat out doing it wrong and I hate you." But "70% roleplaying/30% combat" is actually absolutely meaningless. My idea of what "roleplaying" is might be very different from yours, and I may think of combat as "lots of small encounters in an pre-written module style" and you may think "curated set pieces full of drama."

At least stuff like Dolmenwood defines what it thinks "roleplaying" is so you can all point at it.

 

[Bedrockgames]

In terms of format not much. I have folders of handwritten notes before I transitioned to word processors around 1992.

View attachment 402787View attachment 402788
View attachment 402789

However, my experience with this approach, especially regarding the comment below, has been quite different, and led me to a different conclusion about its utility:

For me this stuff can vary a lot by campaign. I try to keep things organized so that I can simply update existing entries if I need. For example if I have a bunch of sects and the players take over Five Venom Society, killing the leader and expelling his brother, then I will update the entry, put the leader onto my list of the dead, and update the brother to reflect his current situation and any new motivations arises from it (i..e he seeks to get revenge for his brother and intends to go to Dee in hopes of hiring the the Holy Killers to assist him).

And if I have a lose thread like the thing with the bother, I am probably going to make a series of rolls to see how well his efforts work (sometimes I create tables for this and ask the players to roll without telling them what it is for)

 

[Bedrockgames]

Which is why I said that the fact that Dolmenwood/HMTW/etc incorporate a concise set of best practices for players and GMs for that style of play (and the 2014 DMG at least talked about like...4 main "styles of play" in incredibly broad terms from what I remember and sandbox was one?) shows that you can, in fact, talk about what play looks like at the table with guidelines even for "D&D."

I haven't played Dolmenwood or read it so I can't really weigh in there. Again I don't object to an overview of styles with some ideas of how to make it work. As for best practices, that really depends on the particulars. I mean, if the best practices provides advice that I think is great for the styles in question, sure. But I suspect that a lot of people in this thread would disagree sharply over what best practices advice such as section should include

Dude, I'm not even asking for AW1e style "if you dont follow this agenda and principles you're flat out doing it wrong and I hate you." But "70% roleplaying/30% combat" is actually absolutely meaningless. My idea of what "roleplaying" is might be very different from yours, and I may think of combat as "lots of small encounters in an pre-written module style" and you may think "curated set pieces full of drama."

I find most people know what is meant by 70 percent roleplaying, 30 percent combat. Doesn't mean everyone has identical concept of RP, but I think it is sufficient for most communication. What I would certainly want to avoid is the book defining each of these terms in a way where you end up with essentially jargon. I think combat to most people in the context of D&D, means we have combat encounters. Whether those combat encounters are pre-written, or dramatic set pieces, that is a whole separate discussion than whether or not your style involves 30 percent combat

At least stuff like Dolmenwood defines what it thinks "roleplaying" is so you can all point at it.

how does it define roleplaying?

 

[pemerton]

But "70% roleplaying/30% combat" is actually absolutely meaningless.

I find most people know what is meant by 70 percent roleplaying, 30 percent combat. Doesn't mean everyone has identical concept of RP, but I think it is sufficient for most communication.

The choice of that vocabulary to describe the game would make me assume that there will be little if any player-driven play. So, if I saw that, I would assume a heavily curated/railroaded game, with a fair bit of what @Manbearcat calls "rudderless" play.

I don't know if that is what it is supposed to convey.