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

[pemerton]

Well, there you go. That's an impasse if ever there was one!

Discussion over?

See, this is what I find to be the strange thing.

@Campbell and I have different preferences in RPGing. He prefers the AW approach of 'If you do it, you do it" to the scene-and-intent based resolution of Burning Wheel and similar systems. My preference runs the other way.

And @Campbell does a lot of more-or-less "trad" play, which I suspect I wouldn't enjoy as much as he does, for pretty straightforward and (I hope) obvious reasons. Flipping that around, and having some knowledge of the love and care he puts into establishing character both for PCs and NPCs, I expect that he would find some of the characterisation in some of my RPGing a bit underdone.

@Manbearcat puts much more importance on skilled play than I do. And I am much more of a soft-balling/sentimental GM than he is.

I don't have quite as good a grasp of @zakael19's preferences, but I know that BitD and similar games, and Stonetop, are high on the list. Whereas, again, I prefer Burning Wheel and Torchbearer 2e.

These differences don't mean that we can't all talk about RPGing techniques, work together on improving our craft, etc. I've learned a lot from the first two of the three posters I've called out, over more than 10 years now. And more recently I've been learning from @zakael19 too, and look forward to more of that in the future. And of course I interact with a lot of other RPGers too, and read blogs and the like, and these all provide opportunities for learning things. GMing Torchbearer, for instance, has allowed me both to apply elements of my own understanding of Gygaxan RPGing, and to learn from OSR-ish discussions of that and apply some of their ideas too. Thinking about those things also helps me grasp more clearly the important differences between TB2e and Gygaxian/OSR approaches - which is important when, for instance, I convert the T1 Moathouse from classic D&D to TB2e.

The notion that we have to have the same preferences in order to talk productively with one another about what we're doing is very strange to me, in RPGing as in other fields. (I mean, my mentor is an original public meaning originalist; I'm an anti-intentionalist Australian formalist; and my former PhD student who is now a colleague in my school and was supervised by me and my mentor is a subjective-intentions originalist. This doesn't prevent us learning things from one another, and having productive discussions and even collaborations.)

 

[The Firebird]

The GM bases their decision on some factors. Those factors don't, normally, entail some outcome. But the GM extrapolates from them in a manner that some posters have described as "organic" and "natural".

The word "should" describes the the connection between the inferential base, and the conclusion that the GM arrives at as following from that base.

And it has nothing to do with trust. It's about the GM being the one to make the decision, having principal regard to their conception of what follows "naturally" or "organically" from the situation.

All this sounds to me like you see "the GM adjudicates the rules" and "the GM adjudicates the world" as railroading. Right? The factors here amount to what I'll call "the state of the world".

E.g., if a priest follows a religion that forbids drinking, that is the state of the world. The GM then adjudicates the priest does not take a drink. They feel this to be natural.

The guard has a good salary, and so the GM feels they would not be susceptible to bribery. This is the state of the world before the players arrive. Therefore, the GM extrapolates that the bribery attempt does not work.

You see both of these rulings as railroading.

Is that fair?

 

[Micah Sweet]

See, this is what I find to be the strange thing.

@Campbell and I have different preferences in RPGing. He prefers the AW approach of 'If you do it, you do it" to the scene-and-intent based resolution of Burning Wheel and similar systems. My preference runs the other way.

And @Campbell does a lot of more-or-less "trad" play, which I suspect I wouldn't enjoy as much as he does, for pretty straightforward and (I hope) obvious reasons. Flipping that around, and having some knowledge of the love and care he puts into establishing character both for PCs and NPCs, I expect that he would find some of the characterisation in some of my RPGing a bit underdone.

@Manbearcat puts much more importance on skilled play than I do. And I am much more of a soft-balling/sentimental GM than he is.

I don't have quite as good a grasp of @zakael19's preferences, but I know that BitD and similar games, and Stonetop, are high on the list. Whereas, again, I prefer Burning Wheel and Torchbearer 2e.

These differences don't mean that we can't all talk about RPGing techniques, work together on improving our craft, etc. I've learned a lot from the first two of the three posters I've called out, over more than 10 years now. And more recently I've been learning from @zakael19 too, and look forward to more of that in the future. And of course I interact with a lot of other RPGers too, and read blogs and the like, and these all provide opportunities for learning things. GMing Torchbearer, for instance, has allowed me both to apply elements of my own understanding of Gygaxan RPGing, and to learn from OSR-ish discussions of that and apply some of their ideas too. Thinking about those things also helps me grasp more clearly the important differences between TB2e and Gygaxian/OSR approaches - which is important when, for instance, I convert the T1 Moathouse from classic D&D to TB2e.

The notion that we have to have the same preferences in order to talk productively with one another about what we're doing is very strange to me, in RPGing as in other fields. (I mean, my mentor is an original public meaning originalist; I'm an anti-intentionalist Australian formalist; and my former PhD student who is now a colleague in my school and was supervised by me and my mentor is a subjective-intentions originalist. This doesn't prevent us learning things from one another, and having productive discussions and even collaborations.)

I think we've proven through this thread that there's a limit to how much people of widely divergent game preferences can get out of this when neither side is likely to change their mind on fundamental principles.

And personally, from my perspective all of the posters you described have more in common in their preferences with each than with me and my playstyle.

 

[robertsconley]

To me, @Micah Sweet and @AlViking both clearly explain that their styles prioritize a world with internal logic rather than character-centric storytelling. @pemerton elects not to address this. Instead, he consistently redirects the discussion toward his own framework, one centered on narrative authority and the role of player goals in shaping the fiction.

Rather than grappling with their concerns about whether a game world can and should operate independently of character beliefs, he reframes the issue as a failure to prioritize player agency, narrowly defined as narrative influence. This reframing evades the two posters’ points.

Looking over the posts, Micah and AIViking defend a structure where player freedom arises within a neutral world model, not through direct narrative authorship. Pemerton’s replies never directly acknowledge or critique that structure on its own merits, making it unclear whether he misunderstands it or is simply choosing not to engage with it.

 

[Micah Sweet]

See, this is what I find to be the strange thing.

@Campbell and I have different preferences in RPGing. He prefers the AW approach of 'If you do it, you do it" to the scene-and-intent based resolution of Burning Wheel and similar systems. My preference runs the other way.

And @Campbell does a lot of more-or-less "trad" play, which I suspect I wouldn't enjoy as much as he does, for pretty straightforward and (I hope) obvious reasons. Flipping that around, and having some knowledge of the love and care he puts into establishing character both for PCs and NPCs, I expect that he would find some of the characterisation in some of my RPGing a bit underdone.

@Manbearcat puts much more importance on skilled play than I do. And I am much more of a soft-balling/sentimental GM than he is.

I don't have quite as good a grasp of @zakael19's preferences, but I know that BitD and similar games, and Stonetop, are high on the list. Whereas, again, I prefer Burning Wheel and Torchbearer 2e.

These differences don't mean that we can't all talk about RPGing techniques, work together on improving our craft, etc. I've learned a lot from the first two of the three posters I've called out, over more than 10 years now. And more recently I've been learning from @zakael19 too, and look forward to more of that in the future. And of course I interact with a lot of other RPGers too, and read blogs and the like, and these all provide opportunities for learning things. GMing Torchbearer, for instance, has allowed me both to apply elements of my own understanding of Gygaxan RPGing, and to learn from OSR-ish discussions of that and apply some of their ideas too. Thinking about those things also helps me grasp more clearly the important differences between TB2e and Gygaxian/OSR approaches - which is important when, for instance, I convert the T1 Moathouse from classic D&D to TB2e.

The notion that we have to have the same preferences in order to talk productively with one another about what we're doing is very strange to me, in RPGing as in other fields. (I mean, my mentor is an original public meaning originalist; I'm an anti-intentionalist Australian formalist; and my former PhD student who is now a colleague in my school and was supervised by me and my mentor is a subjective-intentions originalist. This doesn't prevent us learning things from one another, and having productive discussions and even collaborations.)

For the record, I have absolutely no idea what the stances you described your mentor, yourself, and your student having mean. I'm sorry if that was meant to be illuminating.

 

[pemerton]

I have absolutely no idea what your talking about "the connection between the inferential base, and the conclusion that the GM arrives at as following from that base."

The GM has to make a decision. They do that by thinking about some stuff - the base. This will include:

*Whatever it is that the player described their PCs as doing;

*Whatever the GM has prepared about the setting:

*What the GM thinks about the interaction between the above two things;

*Probably other stuff too, like a general sense of "vibes" or "genre" (eg @Bedrockgames often references a film genre), plus general assumptions about how things 'work".​

The GM then has to draw some conclusion from that base: this is the making of an inference, or extrapolation, from all the stuff the GM is considering.

The conclusion won't follow by way of entailment: we're not talking here about maths or physics or algorithmic processes. It requires judgement. The GM has to decide what makes sense, or - as I put it - what should follow, from that base.

I fully believe you when you say that you do not include, as part of the base, a desire for some outcome or other. Nevertheless, you - and any GM deciding what happens next - has to reach a conclusion on the basis of the stuff that they consider.

Making decisions that are not based on goals, either the player's or the GM's, is what makes a game a sandbox to me.

OK, and I would have used the term the same way until I started reading this thread, and saw some posters - eg @Hussar - using the term more broadly. That is why, as I've mentioned a few times upthread, this thread has changed the way I think about the idea of a sandbox.

To me the intent and approach the GM takes to make decisions is all that matters as far as I'm concerned.

Well, yes. I would say the same thing. It's just that I want a system that puts stuff into the base that you don't include. And vice versa.

Whether the GM is making decisions based on their goals or the goals of the player, they are no longer being impartial.

Yes. Impartiality is not a goal in most of my GMing. @Campbell has made the same point upthread.

If a GM is railroading and the players make an attempt to overcome an obstacle that follows the rails and the GM decides that it automatically succeeds, is that not still a railroad?

Maybe. The main RPGs that I play that include the idea of automatic success are Burning Wheel and Torchbearer 2e, and they don't use automatic success in the sort of way you've described. Off the top of my head I don't know of any approach to RPGing that does - maybe some neo-Trad/OC approaches? @zakael19 will know that better than me.

 

[Lanefan]

Suppose that I, as a player, describe my PC doing such-and-such. (My PC says something, or strikes something with a club, or opens a door, or whatever.)

And the GM, in reply, describes how some element of the setting or situation changes in response: maybe a NPC acts a certain way, or an object is changed in some way, etc, as the GM determines based on their extrapolation from the fictional situation.

It may be very clear, to the player, how what they have said about their PC has affected the shared fiction. But, from what I've said so far, it does not follow that the player has exercised any agency. Because from what I've said so far, all we can tell is that the player saying something prompted the GM to say something in response. But we have no indication of how what the player said shaped or controlled what the GM said in response, beyond making certain elements of the shared fiction (ie the PC's declared action) salient.

To work out whether, how, and to what degree the player exercised agency, we need to understand how and why the GM made the decision that they did, and what way - if any - the player's goal, in saying what they did, mattered. If the GM is using procedures or heuristics that make no reference to the player's goal, then the tentative conclusion would be that the player didn't exercise much agency.

Two at-first-glance responses here:

1. When the player described the PC's action, the agency that player had and exercised was to describe that action as opposed to a different action (including standing still and doing nothing, which can be an action in itself). e.g. for "my PC says something" your PC could have said anything (or nothing); you had agency to choose its words, tune, and cadence, and directly expressed that through your roleplay of the character. Further, unless physically restrained in the fiction your PC had the option to do a myriad of other things rather than speak.

2. Including the paragraph I just wrote above, this all seems to be taking something simple and vastly - vastly! - overthinking it.

 

[pemerton]

For the record, I have absolutely no idea what the stances you described your mentor, yourself, and your student having mean. I'm sorry if that was meant to be illuminating.

They describe some - not all - of the main cleavages in the scholarship of constitutional interpretation. I mean, I'm in print arguing that my mentor is wrong; my former student is in print arguing that my (and his) mentor is wrong (but for different reasons); and my mentor is in print arguing that I am wrong. (I don't think he's responded to our former student).

I think we've proven through this thread that there's a limit to how much people of widely divergent game preferences can get out of this when neither side is likely to change their mind on fundamental principles.

I don't think that's right. I'm not going to mention posters who aren't participants in this thread, but there are multiple posters on these boards who play OSR-ish RPGs from whom I have learned things.

And personally, from my perspective all of the posters you described have more in common in their preferences with each than with me and my playstyle.

OK.

 

[pemerton]

When the player described the PC's action, the agency that player had and exercised was to describe that action as opposed to a different action

Well, yes, this is the basic thing that players do when playing a RPG.

But it's not as if there is nothing more to be said about how RPG play works.

 

[pemerton]

To me, @Micah Sweet and @AlViking both clearly explain that their styles prioritize a world with internal logic rather than character-centric storytelling. @pemerton elects not to address this. Instead, he consistently redirects the discussion toward his own framework, one centered on narrative authority and the role of player goals in shaping the fiction.

What do you mean by "narrative authority". It's not a phrase I've used in this thread. And I don't believe that it's something that I have "centred".

Nor have I said anything about "storytelling" as part of my own play. I have said that I'm not interested in GM storytelling, either as GM or player.

What I have said is that there is a difference between GM decision-making that prioritises "a world with internal logic" and GM decision-making that also has regard to players' goals for their PCs. And you seem to agree that there is a difference!

Rather than grappling with their concerns about whether a game world can and should operate independently of character beliefs, he reframes the issue as a failure to prioritize player agency, narrowly defined as narrative influence. This reframing evades the two posters’ points.

I don't "evade" points. I engage fully with the idea of the game world operating independently of character beliefs - by which I think you mean player priorities for their PCs.

First, I point out that the gameworld has no autonomous existence. It is a fictional creation, authored and curated by the GM.

Second, I point out that making decisions by reference to the gameworld, without regard to player priorities, therefore centres the GM's view about the fiction and how it should unfold. @hawkeyefan made exactly this same point quite a way upthread.

Micah and AIViking defend a structure where player freedom arises within a neutral world model, not through direct narrative authorship. Pemerton’s replies never directly acknowledge or critique that structure on its own merits, making it unclear whether he misunderstands it or is simply choosing not to engage with it.

I understand it perfectly well - including that the "neural world model" is an act of creation by the GM.

My engagement with it consists mostly in pointing out why I regard it as overly GM-driven and GM-centred for my taste.