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

[mamba]

There are times when DM's get a bit too deep in the weeds and need to realize that not every single thing needs to be a challenge and not every single thing has to be resolved with mechanics. Sometimes it's fine to just say yes.

I don’t think that we have established that the DM wants the characters to do anything at all, all we know is that they won’t get it by getting the guy drunk (or bribe that one guard, not sure what you are responding to), that doesn’t mean there aren’t other ways to achieve it

 

[Bedrockgames]

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.

This is a key thing. And I am not saying @hawkeyefan fans way of conveying this information is bad or necessarily cinematic (I have done things like that to give players information about a character or their environment at times) but with sandbox players, I have found there is often an aversion to things that could feel artificial. This is why in the other thread, I said I use mysteries sparingly in a sandbox (if you are running a sandbox the way a lot of us are describing and you suddenly drop down a mystery, which I definitely do from time to time, it can suddenly feel like a transition into a different mode of play: i.e. "oh now we are on the adventure", whereas prior to that things may have felt more organic*). I sometimes push back on this concern about artificiality, because I think eschewing things like drama, like a cinematic moment, can sometimes suck the life out of play for me. But I get that it is a thing. In the old discussions Rob and I used to involve ourselves in, debates over naturalism in a sandbox were pretty common and my sense was they arose out of a desire to avoid artifice, avoid railroads and create a living world


*I know people hate this term, but it is the only way I can think of to describe what I am talking about

 

[hawkeyefan]

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.

But we’re not even talking about information the characters couldn’t have. We’re talking about information that they could have, which has not been shared with them.

As for the definition of player driven play… I don’t see how it’s anything but.

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.

What’s available to the players to know is largely up to the GM. The example I gave that you describe as a “cutscene” is one means of conveying information… one among many.

 

[mamba]

So the answer to "why do we distrust players but trust GMs" is "because we do."

Now you know why I have said the answers are unsatisfactory.

and your answer to not trusting DMs is to make up rules to use and then trust those same DMs follow the rules?

 

[Bedrockgames]

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. Condemning your entire family to eternal punishment because of consuming any amount of alcohol, no matter what? As noted, not even the most virulently anti-theist people I've ever heard of (like Sam Harris or Richard Dawkins) would ascribe such a patently ridiculous belief to a religious person; it reads like either an extremely poor-taste parody of actual religious belief, or a double-subversion making fun of people who make fun of religious beliefs.

I agree this particular example is not one you are likely to find in a real religious. But we can probably imagine a character who wouldn't do certain things out of a sense of religious duty, a monk who refuses to kill an animal, even a threatening one, because of a belief in karma for example, or someone who refuses to use a spirit board under any circumstances out of fear of demonic possession. You could have other ways to resolve this than "the GM decides character trait and sticks to it" but the GM is just doing what PCs typically do. It isn't so outrageous to say the GM or the players ought to have that much control over their character. Nor is it outrageous to have a system that is less certain (I like fear effects for example in games and those can impact agency in that way). But establishing a strong character trait seems pretty reasonable to me

 

[hawkeyefan]

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.

No it’s not, the GM could be considering whatever he wants. Realism is a consideration… it’s not a cause.

Ultimately, the GM is deciding to do what’s done. Whatever good or ill results from that decision is on the GM.

 

[mamba]

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.

that still requires trust that the DM will play their role correctly / as intended. That holds true regardless of the system. Maybe some make it easier and others harder / more a matter of experience than rules, but fundamentally nothing changed and the way to see whether you like the game is still to play it and find out. After the fact you always know whether the upfront trust was deserved

 

[Bedrockgames]

No it’s not, the GM could be considering whatever he wants. Realism is a consideration… it’s not a cause.

Ultimately, the GM is deciding to do what’s done. Whatever good or ill results from that decision is on the GM.

He could be, but he isn't because we are establishing that the GM is using realism as the or one of the main criteria for the decisions. He is basing that decision on what he considers to be realistic. So realism is the thing driving it. Look if I am a player and the GM makes a call based on realism, and it negatively impacts my character in some way, I am not going to be bothered the way I would if he just made the call out of a desire to negatively impact my character. In the former, the GM is giving me a game experience I was looking for. One where the world feels like a believable place, and one byproduct of that is some of his calls on realism aren't going to go my way. That doesn't mean he is morally culpable. That is a baked in understanding if the GM is prioritizing realism: there is a risk that what the GM finds most realistic, might go against what the players are trying to do. And that can be important in player driven play of the type that we are describing.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

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.

Well, to use one recent illustrative example, with multiple posts to this effect:

I don't want to play a game where I don't trust the GM to try to provide me with the best experience they can, and I don't want to run a game where the players mistrust me either. In both cases the experience won't be fun. And I definitely don't want to play or run a game with rules seemingly designed to constrain the GM from possibly making a decision I don't like. All of this is preference of course, but on this topic what else is there?

All of this where that trust that your GM isn't going to be a controlling jerk comes in. Without that (and it seems a good number of folks on this forum lack that trust), you run into all sorts of other issues that need their own solutions. IMO it's an attempt at a mechanical solve for a social problem.

If you can't trust your GM, I really don't know why you play. It seems like it wouldn't be fun.

Each of these posts fundamentally boils down to, "Wow, you can't trust a GM to be a GM, that sucks for you."

 

[Manbearcat]

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.

You do realize this bolded bit is an extremely subjective judgement call which can deliver terrific levels of disagreement. An easy area of disagreement actually engages with the immersion/habitation issue.

If someone is playing a PC in a locale where that PC (a) inhabited for the course of their offscreen/pregame life and therefore have attained crucial experience and (b) would have established consequential relationships, a player having their orientation/action declaration process filtered through their GM's "would your character have reasonable access to hometown/regional information or relations who are willing/able to help" concept-space (rather than their own concept-space or through systemitized mediation or reliable currency expenditure) is an utter shut down for their setting immersion and PC habitation (not to mention a shut down of autonomy in gameplay).

That player, through their PC, becomes utterly alienated to setting, situation, relations.

Same thing goes for the fire vs Trolls conversation. There is a host of GMs who consider players, playing their adventurers, acting upon that information as degenerate metagaming. Meanwhile, there is a trivial case to be made that such information would be selected for as pervasive "word-of-mouth" or folklore minimum.

Point being, you're making a judgement about "reasonable access" and that judgement can absolutely be rationally disagreed with (and, in some cases, should be disagreed with to achieve "same pagedness" bare minimum).

Manbearcat said:
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?

I've got to be away for the rest of the afternoon, but I want to engage with this in the most functional way possible. To that end, I want you to have as much clarity as I can muster. So I'd like for you to set the parameters here so you have maximal information going into this exercise. If you would, please give me:

* A few elements of setting and immediate situation that you intend to be parameters.

* Some kind of conflict archetype (say, perilous journey or convince crowd) with a couple of PC archetypes (pick any two).

After you've nailed that down, I'll depict how I would desire it to be systemitized, GMed, run and a "black box GMing" alternative.

Probably won't be till much later today or tomorrow morning.