D&D General [rant]The conservatism of D&D fans is exhausting.

[Thomas Shey]

I do not think there's a mediocre referee problem. I think there's an undue burden because we put it on referees to align players' informal expectations into a cohesive game. That rather than seeking alignment of everyone's natural desires the easiest way to reach alignment at the table is for us all to adapt the aims we establish together. Just like when we play board games.

That when we align, either to a game concept we agree on as a group, or take on the concept of a designed game things go more smoothly because we are all rowing together and know what to expect of one another. Formal expectations as much about our fellow players as they are about the GM. To get what we need from the play experience we often need things from each other. There's no shame in admitting that.

These formal expectations need not come from game texts. My own group establishes these through active dialog as much as game texts. We also do custom design for our games to make sure that mechanics and practices form a cohesive whole.

I think there's something to this, but its also good to understand that people are often really bad at expressing expectations. That's one reason I think choice of rules system can help considerably here (at least for people who are paying attention to the rule system at all); it can't set all the expectations, but it can tell you a lot of them up-front without some of the stressors with being overt about what you want (even if you can express it at all, which some people are just bad at).

Of course there's no assurance that the available games (in terms of both rules and campaign focus) will, in fact, fulfill everyone's wants there.

 

[mamba]

nvm

 

[Micah Sweet]

That's your choice, but you don't have to imply or state that people who do are only doing so because they expect their GMs to be malignant. That's just playing the dozens on their position.

Even if you're right, and they do so to because they expect mediocre GMs instead of terrible ones, I still think forcing mechanical constraints on the GM's actions is unpleasant, and not a method I would support. In fact it might be worse in that case, since in my view the players aren't even expecting bad things from their GM, so the constraints seem even more IMO unnecessary.

 

[Thomas Shey]

With the internet and digital technology, it is a non-issue that one system dominates the hobby and industry. The only critical chokepoint at the moment is DriveThruRPG.

This is only true when everyone A) Has equal access to remote play, and B) finds it at all acceptable. Neither of those is as consistent as this position would seem to suggest. Even if they're willing, it can be extremely difficult to find a remote game that works for some people, and variance in time zones is not a trivial element there.

 

[AlViking]

My point it, sometimes the solution to problems is not to go elsewhere but to fix the one you're with. There's nothing about "The only game I have access to is this game, and the GM is creative and well meaning but shows some bad judgment" that says the solution is not to address that.

But it there is an issue of how to address it. My approach would be to talk to the GM, discuss my issues and give advice and feedback. I don't think changing the rules of the game will make a mediocre GM into a better GM. Their influence on the campaign may change, but doesn't make them better at their role at the table.

Meanwhile maybe I just accept that most GMs are not <insert your favorite GM ever> and we're all just doing our best to have a fun game. I don't let perfect get in the way of good enough or grouse about it when a GM doesn't cater to my specific needs. Every GM in existence could improve, I'd rather help them improve than change the nature of the game in the hopes that it will make a difference.

 

[Thomas Shey]

Even if you're right, and they do so to because they expect mediocre GMs instead of terrible ones, I still think forcing mechanical constraints on the GM's actions is unpleasant, and not a method I would support. In fact it might be worse in that case, since in my view the players aren't even expecting bad things from their GM, so the constraints seem even more IMO unnecessary.

But they are expecting bad things from their GMs, because they've often seen it plenty of times. They just aren't expecting the GM to be doing the deliberately.

 

[Micah Sweet]

This is only true when everyone A) Has equal access to remote play, and B) finds it at all acceptable. Neither of those is as consistent as this position would seem to suggest. Even if they're willing, it can be extremely difficult to find a remote game that works for some people, and variance in time zones is not a trivial element there.

Well, it's at least better than it used to be.

 

[Thomas Shey]

But it there is an issue of how to address it. My approach would be to talk to the GM, discuss my issues and give advice and feedback. I don't think changing the rules of the game will make a mediocre GM into a better GM. Their influence on the campaign may change, but doesn't make them better at their role at the table.

It may well reduce the incidence of problems, however. In fact, in some cases I'll outright say its likely a given.

Meanwhile maybe I just accept that most GMs are not <insert your favorite GM ever> and we're all just doing our best to have a fun game. I don't let perfect get in the way of good enough or grouse about it when a GM doesn't cater to my specific needs. Every GM in existence could improve, I'd rather help them improve than change the nature of the game in the hopes that it will make a difference.

I just think in many cases its far away from just a "hope", and doesn't produce nearly as much of a need for potential confrontations (that many GMs have been taught to react negatively to).

 

[The Firebird]

But that is exactly why it is a poor example. If « Less than 1% of people are willing to suffer certain death for their beliefs » than it strains credulity to claim « random NPC is so opposed to alcohol that they would rather be tortured than quaff a drink ».

I think it is sufficiently common that a given NPC feeling that way would not make me say the game was a railroad.

 

[Thomas Shey]

Well, it's at least better than it used to be.

Sure. But it still has some of the problems you always had (in terms of availability of games--the fact there's a much larger pool to fish from just means the numbers flatten out rather than having one area that has a half-dozen GMs willing to run game X and another area has one (if that), but it still doesn't mean the number of GMs willing to run the kind of games you want isn't exceeded by the number of player looking for them, and this can be compounded by issues of who's running what on which platform), and some new ones to boot. Its an improvement, but it hasn't made the problem disappear.