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

[EzekielRaiden]

The problem is something thinking they know what you have to own up to. Because it is like you are trying to psychoanalyze other peoples games. You are trying to get into peoples heads, and assuming you know what biases are in operation. This isn't therapy, this isn't confession, or an interrogation. And it isn't that your analysis is a threat, it is that that kind of language in a conversation about game styles, bothers people because you are telling them you know more about what is going on in their own mind than they do

The other issue is I think a lot of us reject your method of analysis. So insisting people stop using language, accusing them of using 'vague platitudes' is not helpful in having a conversation. If people have failed to persuade you that is fair. But this stuff starts feeling insulting after a while. You don't have to like how I describe my games. I don't expect to persuade you. I do think it is fair though that I don't feel like I am in an interrogation seat when I try to explain how I run a game to you

I mean, they are vague platitudes. I'm sorry. That's what they are. They don't actually mean anything. They're vague handwaving. There is no other way to describe it. They don't describe anything, they merely point to it, like drawing an arrow on a map, as though that gives anyone any idea what the place actually looks like.

 

[The Firebird]

The appeal to the “real world” to me indicates that you have a priority other than player driven play.

The amount of influence the GM has over what the players know of the situation in the game world is immense. Choosing to create a scenario where they don’t have the info needed is a choice. Own up to it… don’t blame it on realism.

My desire is explicitly for a world that feels realistic. If "player driven play" requires the players to have more information than their characters would reasonably have access to, then I'm opposed to it.

I don't think that is a good definition of player driven play though.

This is what frustrates me about the "trust the GM" axiom:

If the actual gameplay layer is transparently systematized in a compelling, engaging way for player decision-trees and the GM executes their part in delivering that gameplay layer in an expert and deft fashion? We...don't have to trust...anything. We just...know. Because its...right_bloody_there. GM does their overt part + player does their overt part + system does its overt part = in concert we have arrived at a new, transparent gamestate and associated situation-state.​

I thought this post seemed interesting but I'm afraid I don't really understand what it's saying. Are there specific examples that illustrate the differences?

The point of analysis is, among other things, to explore unconscious biases, preconceptions, and so on at work in play. "Owning up to it" (in my understanding of @hawkeyefan's usage) is asking for engagement in the process of analysis, and not simply regurgitating unexamined platitudes like "what feels organic." Why you are so resistant to analysis and seem to consider it a threat to your own game and its processes is puzzling!

But that isn't what people tell us to do--over and over and over and over and over in these threads.

It's never "the players have every right to check the GM".

It's "Wow, you just really can't trust your GM, can you? That must really suck for you".

I don't think either of these posts accurately characterize the argument and the statements at the end seem to caricature the opposing position in an unhelpful way. What am I missing? Specific examples would help.

In referee-driven sandbox campaigns, the fog of war, the sense that the world has depth, opacity, and exists beyond player authorship, is a feature. Many players find challenge and satisfaction in navigating that uncertainty and responding to the world as it unfolds, rather than co-creating it.

This is exactly right. It's what I'm looking for in a campaign.

 

[hawkeyefan]

You are painting his position way more extreme than it is. Clearly you can value realism and player driven play, and realism can even I’m enhance a sense of being a character in a world, where you are making choices that feel like real choices. He is talking about how in life sometimes you have information, sometimes you don’t. If the GM is always making scenarios where the players don’t have access to information, then sure maybe something is off. If the GM is trying to make a plausible world and doing it when it feels realistic to do so, or at a realistic frequency, there is no problem there nor is there anything he has to own up to. It is this last point: that the GM has something to own up to, is what runs peopke the wrong way here. Statements like that have been made about this style and I think it is a very unfair characterization. It is one thing for us to disagree over approaches, another to treat this like something where people need to confess to some kind of D&D wrong doing

You misunderstand me. There is nothing “wrong” with the way @Lanefan runs his game. But it is absolutely a choice.

If you as a GM choose to not share some crucial bit of information with the players, then you’ve chosen to do so. Own the choice. Don’t blame it on realism.

It’s just as realistic for any number of other things to happen. The GM is choosing to do what they do.

 

[Manbearcat]

I am agreeing that a DM just acting on their fancy is a problem, I am disagreeing that unless there is a procedure to prevent this at all times, the DM will end up doing so. The DM can restrain themselves.

This is not to say that there should be no rules, only that they do not need to completely prevent this on their own

How does this restraint manifest in a way that is knowable to the players? And not just knowable, but sufficiently decipherable such that their decision-tree work is informed by it and actually autonomous (contra the GM basically playing their character for them in various moments)? That is the key piece here. Just saying "GMs will principally restrain themselves <by taking a secret vow or holding to some principled stand in their minds>" isn't enough.

This is similar to the questions around (i) GMs declaring uncertainty in 5e as well as (ii) mediating DCs via landing on (iia) genre emulation vs (iib) physics simulation and/or (iiib) transparently establishing (or not...which is typically the case) the Medium DC benchmark (is it "Average NPC Joe" vs "Expert NPC" vs "Hero of x Tier" vs "Hero of y Tier" vs "Hero of z Tier") for DC setting in 5e. It isn't enough to say "trust the GM...they will do this competently." That GM process needs to either be transparent and codified or it needs to be absolutely telegraphed (like via meta-conversation) and inferable for players to be able to reliably do their "gameplay necessaries" in orienting to the situation and then executing a sequence of moves which facilitate a desired gamestate.

 

[The Firebird]

You misunderstand me. There is nothing “wrong” with the way @Lanefan runs his game. But it is absolutely a choice.

If you as a GM choose to not share some crucial bit of information with the players, then you’ve chosen to do so. Own the choice. Don’t blame it on realism.

It’s just as realistic for any number of other things to happen. The GM is choosing to do what they do.

I think we need more specifics to say "it's just as realistic for any number of other things to happen". If every guard encounter starts with a quick cinematic showing if the guard is or isn't corrupt, then it will feel artificial. Like a video game cutscene.

 

[mamba]

I have, repeatedly, said precisely why that example trips it. It isn't because this person has things they cannot be persuaded to do. It is because the reason--the thing "the DM already knows"--is so utterly ludicrous, I flatly do not believe ANYONE would have that religious belief.

the why is not really the relevant part, the fact that one NPC being ‘immune’ to being persuaded of one thing has no bearing on it being a railroad, yet to you it makes it one

Because I literally cannot tell the difference between black-box DMing where that belief is (somehow, by some incredibly twisted logic and bizarre circumstance etc. etc.) actually appropriate and justified, and one where the DM invented it on the spot to shut down reasonable pathways she simply doesn't approve of.

I am not seeing the relevance of this. So it is a railroad if you disagree that something is possible / impossible, but it isn’t if you always agree with the DM on that?

I don’t think of something as a railroad just because every once in a while something I would like to do cannot be done. It’s the frequency of this that determines how much of a railroad it is, but it happening every once in a while is meaningless

 

[Bedrockgames]

I mean, they are vague platitudes. I'm sorry. That's what they are. They don't actually mean anything. They're vague handwaving. There is no other way to describe it. They don't describe anything, they merely point to it, like drawing an arrow on a map, as though that gives anyone any idea what the place actually looks like.

Well I disagree, and think this isn't an accurate description of how I have conversed. You don't have to feel different of course. I do feel like I am describing actual procedures and approaches. I also use broad language. But I don't feel that I am using vague platitudes and I don't think characterizing my language in that way is helping the conversation. Like I said, it just seems insulting to me.

 

[mamba]

So what would make it utterly ridiculous? How about a dead end, where the map clearly shows a path should have been there, because....a continuous migration of gelatinous cubes is completely filling the passageway, streaming out of a broken pipe on one end and glorping up through a gap in the ceiling.

were the companions of the ring railroaded when they failed on the mountain pass and had to go through Moria? When would you consider this an acceptable (non-railroad) outcome? If it weren’t gelatinous cubes but a cave-in?

 

[Bedrockgames]

If you as a GM choose to not share some crucial bit of information with the players, then you’ve chosen to do so. Own the choice. Don’t blame it on realism.

It’s just as realistic for any number of other things to happen. The GM is choosing to do what they do.

If the GM is picking from among a number of realistic choices, especially if they are picking the one they think is most plausible, then realism is a key factor. Acting like it is just the GM doing what they want, and that they have to admit to that, is failing to drill down into all the things the GM could be weighing. Likely the GM isn't just considering realism, but also doing things like weighing how it impacts fairness in the game, how it impacts being true to a given NPCs established personality, etc. And sometimes realism gets in the way of choice. I want a GM to have a strong sense of what they think might be true in a given moment. If they think it is ridiculous for a party to think bribing a guard should be easy, it doesn't bother me, and it will feel realistic on the player side. Sometimes choices like that, can add to a sense of realism in play for the player. You have to take it into the full context of the campaign of course.

 

[mamba]

Something being arbitrary doesn't necessarily mean it's bad or wrong. But it is being declared on the foundation of "because I say so", without any real ability for the players to game about it. They can't predict nor prepare for it because they explicitly aren't allowed to know enough information to do so.

they can know that the guy follows his religion very strictly and part of it is to not drink alcohol, and that he never drinks alcohol even in situations where it is around.

If they know that, or could have learned it if they bothered, is that sufficient to mean it is not a railroad?