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

[mamba]

Of course not. But I also don't think that "objectivity in worldbuilding" is really a worthwhile goal for TTRPG play.

then I am not sure why you brought it up as if the DM not being able to do so were a bad thing

 

[Faolyn]

Where are you getting this?

A lot of fantasy games like to claim monsters and magic are rare and wondrous things (in large part to avoid having to do a ton of worldbuidling), and then have them show up all the time anyway.

 

[The Firebird]

Sure. Though I don't think it's necessarily about trust, and it's frustrating that it always comes back to this.

For me, it's largely about lowering the burden on the GM. I think the more they have to create and the more they create, the greater the burden, and the more likely that mistakes are made, or that judgment isn't always as strong as it could be. I say this more as a GM than as a player... though based on many comments in this thread, I see GMing mistakes as being far more common and more forgivable than many other folks.

I'm not worried about bad faith GMing. I just don't think it takes bad faith for GMing to be less than ideal.

Yeah I think this is a reasonable argument for more narrativist games. It was one of the things that appealed to me.

My most recent experience with this type of play was when running Tomb of Annihilation in 5e. Play was great all through the kind of sandbox type of set up of the Chult hexcrawl. Then once the PCs reached the actual dungeon, play ground to a halt as they started turtling and pixel-bitching about every single thing they tried to do.

There's a lot of personal preference here. I like taking my time in the dungeon and evaluating the possible outcomes before moving. Likewise, I like planning the heist or whatever, so when Blades skips that I find it unsatisfying. But a lot of people do want to get right to the action.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

I've give my opinion on this before but if you're making decisions based on established fiction then by definition you aren't railroading.

My definition of railroading.

Railroading = ignoring the established fiction to get to a story outcome you want

Then you use a definition of railroading I neither understand nor accept.

I had thought we were quite clear at this point that "railroading" means any action, whatever that action might be, which forces a particular outcome to occur within the fictional space.

By your lights, a DM who wrote a 500-page setting bible containing copious detailed notes about every possible visit-able location could not be railroading, no matter how many things they nix in advance. Nor would it be railroading to be running Dragonlance and telling players which character they will play and what scenes they'll play through--after all, it would be the players ignoring established fiction to deviate from what the Dragonlance novels tell us!

 

[TwoSix]

then I am not sure why you brought it up as if the DM not being able to do so were a bad thing

That wasn't what I was intending to say.

I'm merely saying that the idea that any DM can be "objective" in how they drive forward the fictional state, even just using mental heuristics to "model" the setting outside of PC participation and at-table play, is inherently flawed.

 

[Faolyn]

Whilst I personally think this is great stuff to have happen now and then, there are (sadly) some here who would take umbrage with such low-to-no-stakes play even occurring, never mind it being seen as important.

And that's just it - those low-or-no-stakes sequences can be highly enjoyable in themselves and help set the table for the high-stakes moments that come later, and further help those high-stakes moments stand out as memorable.

Exactly. My table isn't huge for combat. We generally try to find peaceful solutions--but we have no problem with combat against foes who are very clearly evil. And it means that these combats, while rare, are meaningful for us.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

But, I very strongly disagree with this. I don't think it follows that because they created the world, they are driving the story. The players are driving, within the world the GM provides.

I think, in my judgement at least, this is not a coherent position. Context is everything. Sure, players may choose between options, but they're limited to reacting to a largely predetermined set of situations. Beyond that, I honestly don't believe in the existence of GM objectivity/neutrality. It undoubtedly can exist at a small scale, sometimes, but in terms of overall situation, it's impossible. The results can be great, but they're not putting the players nearly as much in the driver's seat as is commonly imagined by some.

 

[TwoSix]

Exactly. My table isn't huge for combat. We generally try to find peaceful solutions--but we have no problem with combat against foes who are very clearly evil. And it means that these combats, while rare, are meaningful for us.

I would note that "high-stakes" and "combat" are not intended to be used synonymously.

"High stakes" is generally intended to mean, for these use cases, "situations that will challenge or possibly change a character's beliefs or conceptions of themselves."

 

[Bedrockgames]

I think, in my judgement at least, this is not a coherent position. Context is everything. Sure, players may choose between options, but they're limited to reacting to a largely predetermined set of situations.

No they aren’t. They are also able to put pieces together to create situations of their own. They operate through their character but the whole point of world building and of presenting an inhabited world they exists outside the player, is so they can interact with it and become active participants. The situations that do exist are starting points and often simply the results of things like tables anyways. But once the campaign gets going the players are driving situations

Beyond that, I honestly don't believe in the existence of GM objectivity/neutrality. It undoubtedly can exist at a small scale, sometimes, but in terms of overall situation, it's impossible. The results can be great, but they're not putting the players nearly as much in the driver's seat as is commonly imagined by some.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

This is why living NPCs are such a crucial concept. I am not particularly concerned about whether it arises before the NPC is introduced or if the GM just has an immediate sense of a character when they make it up in the moment, but I think having NPCs with drive, ambitions, desires and goals is important for the chemical reaction. I am less worried about clashes of ethics and more about clashes of personality

Not sure I understand the last sentence very well. We all definitely agree on NPCs having depth of personality.