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

[EzekielRaiden]

Submission to what? A fun game?

I have no choice but to submit to my friends and risk that they are using their visits to my house to plot arson, or move across the country in the night to be safe from their possible machinations.

If I have a concern, I speak to the other party about it. It's simple and easy.

You seem to feel if someone could, theoretically, be doing something wrong, and you can't prove they are not, you must assume the worst. In all seriousness, that sounds to me like a terrible, exhausting, stressful way to live.

In my group, we chill, hangout, do some gaming and have fun. I can't imagine sitting there terrified the GM might secretly be making some decisions without sound reasoning, especially when there are absolutely no cues suggesting such a thing, simply an absence of hard proof they are not.

Again: no.

It is that...let me put as much emphasis on this as I possibly can...

IF

If something concerning happens, what can be done? What options do I have? How can I expect accountability? How can I ask for redress? How can I work toward a fixed situation, where the concerns have been properly dealt with in a way any reasonable person could call fair and forthright?

Every single time I ever bring this up, it's always dismissively as either "wow bro, guess you can't trust anyone, that must suck", "the game doesn't work if you don't trust the DM so you just gotta do that", or "don't play with jerks". Never--literally never, not once, in any of these threads, has ANYONE on the other side actually stopped to take my concerns seriously. Literally actually never.

Is it any wonder I'm suspicious? Literally not one of you has EVER stopped to empathize, to understand, to be like, "Okay, let's talk about it. What would you want to do? How would you approach this?" It's always either insulting me for being some kind of mentally stunted freak, blithely ignoring any possible concern whatsoever with (as Lord Acton put it) "the office sanctifies the holder", or pretending that the only two possibilities are saints and jerks and nothing else ever occurs anywhere in-between.

There are other options. You can have someone who is playing fast and loose with the trust given to them because they believe it's the right thing to do, or the necessary thing, or that the ends justify the means. You can have someone who is accidentally giving off really really really bad vibes even though not one single thing they're doing is actually a problem. You can have someone who is usually entirely wonderful, but every now and then they hear that siren song, to just this once, just for a moment, "bend the rules". Etc., etc., etc.

There are an infinitude of ways for a GM to be less-than-saintly but in no way actually a jerk. To have zip-zero-nada ill intent, but still acting for ill. I, as a social person, want to be able to fix that. I don't want my only options to be "well I guess I just have to take it" or the outright nuclear option of leaving.

But every single time, that's literally the only two options you folks give me. Those are the only answers. Either I do nothing, or the game is completely over. I want other options! I want to know that I can work things out with people! I want to build and maintain trust, and doing that REQUIRES give and take! But as it's been presented, literally every single time, there is no give and take--or, at least, the give is all on one side and the take is all on the other, unless you blow up your participation in that game completely. Either you accept literally everything, regardless of how concerning it is, because the only possible answer you'll ever get is "just trust me bro", or you leave, destroying your participation in that game and probably hurting some relationships in the doing.

 

[Kromanjon]

Again: no.

It is that...let me put as much emphasis on this as I possibly can...

IF

If something concerning happens, what can be done? What options do I have? How can I expect accountability? How can I ask for redress? How can I work toward a fixed situation, where the concerns have been properly dealt with in a way any reasonable person could call fair and forthright?

Every single time I ever bring this up, it's always dismissively as either "wow bro, guess you can't trust anyone, that must suck", "the game doesn't work if you don't trust the DM so you just gotta do that", or "don't play with jerks". Never--literally never, not once, in any of these threads, has ANYONE on the other side actually stopped to take my concerns seriously. Literally actually never.

Is it any wonder I'm suspicious? Literally not one of you has EVER stopped to empathize, to understand, to be like, "Okay, let's talk about it. What would you want to do? How would you approach this?" It's always either insulting me for being some kind of mentally stunted freak, blithely ignoring any possible concern whatsoever with (as Lord Acton put it) "the office sanctifies the holder", or pretending that the only two possibilities are saints and jerks and nothing else ever occurs anywhere in-between.

There are other options. You can have someone who is playing fast and loose with the trust given to them because they believe it's the right thing to do, or the necessary thing, or that the ends justify the means. You can have someone who is accidentally giving off really really really bad vibes even though not one single thing they're doing is actually a problem. You can have someone who is usually entirely wonderful, but every now and then they hear that siren song, to just this once, just for a moment, "bend the rules". Etc., etc., etc.

There are an infinitude of ways for a GM to be less-than-saintly but in no way actually a jerk. To have zip-zero-nada ill intent, but still acting for ill. I, as a social person, want to be able to fix that. I don't want my only options to be "well I guess I just have to take it" or the outright nuclear option of leaving.

But every single time, that's literally the only two options you folks give me. Those are the only answers. Either I do nothing, or the game is completely over. I want other options! I want to know that I can work things out with people! I want to build and maintain trust, and doing that REQUIRES give and take! But as it's been presented, literally every single time, there is no give and take--or, at least, the give is all on one side and the take is all on the other, unless you blow up your participation in that game completely. Either you accept literally everything, regardless of how concerning it is, because the only possible answer you'll ever get is "just trust me bro", or you leave, destroying your participation in that game and probably hurting some relationships in the doing.

Ok, I'll bite. What would you want to do? How would you approach it?

For me, I'd probably try to have a conversation with said part because honestly that's the only answer I can come up with. If you think someone is acting in bad faith (wither conscious or not), talk to them about it.

Also, if you want someone to ask you a question don't try to agitate them into it and play the victim. You have been very aggressive in your rhetoric more than once in this thread so before demanding empathy from others, practice it yourself.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

Ok, I'll bite. What would you want to do? How would you approach it?

Well, I would try to communicate with the DM about it, with the expectation that they could offer me more than "just trust me bro". I don't expect to be made privy to all possible information (I don't even think the DM could do that, if they wanted to!) But I expect something more than "I cannot give you anything at all, you just have to trust me, otherwise the game doesn't work." I expect something given back. It would be great to be given examples of ways DMs here have resolved their conflicts, for example.

For me, I'd probably try to have a conversation with said part because honestly that's the only answer I can come up with. If you think someone is acting in bad faith (wither conscious or not), talk to them about it.

Okay...how? About what?

Because the examples people keep giving me boil down to "just trust me bro". There's nothing deeper than that. Nothing offered. No concrete assurances. Nothing. Just "you just have to trust me, because I'm DM."

Also, if you want someone to ask you a question don't try to agitate them into it and play the victim. You have been very aggressive in your rhetoric more than once in this thread so before demanding empathy from others, practice it yourself.

When you've gone literal years without a single person offering it in a thread like this, you would have a pretty sour attitude too.

Particularly when, as I've said, at least three different people have straight-up questioned whether I, personally, the human being behind the keyboard, have the capacity to form human relationships.

 

[pemerton]

The only games I know of that really delve into this sort of thing aren't doing Conflict, and are more like group-storytelling games (Wanderhome maybe, Mobile Frame Zero: Firebrands) or the Relating centered Under Hollow Hills.

It really does remain one of the least satisfying bits of play as GM for me, because I don't want to be in charge of fiating an NPC's interior life - yet all the mechanics I have for that fall into transactional stuff (persuade/intimidate/etc).

Prince Valiant has a concept called "Special Effects" - the GM may add them to NPC/creatures as part of prepping a scenario; and the players can obtain them by earning "Storyteller Certificates" from the GM, by engaging in amusing/engaging/exciting play.

One of the special effects is Incite Lust. Another is Supress Lust. Here's an example of Incite Lust being used by the GM (ie me):

warning came that a military force was approaching in the distance. The drawbridge was raised and the gates closed. But Sir Morgath, looking out from the battlements, could see that in front of the soldiers were two women riding hurriedly on ponies. (In the tram on the way to the session I had decided to use the second of the Woman in Distress episodes found in the main rulebook.) There was debate - should the drawbridge be lowered? - but Sir Morgath was against it, as too risky. The women arrived at the edge of the moat across from the drawbridge and called out for help to Sir Gerran, who as Marshall of the order was in command of the gates. Lady Lorette of Lothian explained that she was fleeing from her fiance, Sir Blackpool the Count of Toulouse, to whom she had been betrothed by her father and who had treated her cruelly. Would they not lower the drawbridge?

Although Prince Valiant is not technically a pulp it is from the same period - the 30s and 40s - and there is a degree of pulp-era stereotyping in Greg Stafford's presentation of women in his scenarios. In this case, Lady Lorette has Presence 4 and Glamourie 5. So as she pleaded to Gerran I rolled her 9 dice vs Gerran's Presence of 3. I allowed Gerran's player two bonus dice (the maximum morale bonus allowed for in the system) as a resolute Marshall defending his castle, so he had 5 dice in total. And rolled better than me! And so he didn't relent.

Meanwhile Sir Morgath had lowered a rope down the wall of the castle. He called out to the Lady and she leapt into the moat and swam to him, where he took hold of her and carried her up the wall. But the handmaiden accompanying her did not have the strength or courage to jump into the moat. So Morgath slid back down the rope and swang across the moat to rescue her. (At the start of the session I had handed out some fame (the "XP" of the system) that had been earned in the previous session. This had qualified Morgath for a new skill rank, which he had spent on Agility: his player felt he was repeatedly suffering for a lack of physical ability at key moments. It now served him well, as he got 3 successes on his 4 dice.)

In the scenario as written by Stafford, the Lady has the Incite Lust special effect which she will use against the strongest and most famous male adventurer, provided he is not married. Anticipating possible complications, Morgath - when asked by the Lady who her rescuer was - announced himself as Sir Morgath, husband of Lady Elizabeth of York. But being an unfair GM while also trying to run with the fiction, it seemed only to make sense that Morgath should fall for the Lady as he carried her in his arms into the castle. The player cursed me appropriately, but also had seen it coming. He took the Lady into the keep to ensure her safety.

Sir Morgath's continuing infatuation with Lorette became an ongoing source of amusement, and occasionally frustration, in play.

 

[Kromanjon]

Okay...how? About what?

Because the examples people keep giving me boil down to "just trust me bro". There's nothing deeper than that. Nothing offered. No concrete assurances. Nothing. Just "you just have to trust me, because I'm DM."

Well you just answered your own question. A conversation is more than one exchange and this isn't the place to disassemble human communication as a concept. In short I would voice my misgivings, allow the GM to answer, respond appropriately and so on and so forth. If a consensus could be reached, great, if not then perhaps it's time to find someone else to play with.

When you've gone literal years without a single person offering it in a thread like this, you would have a pretty sour attitude too.

Particularly when, as I've said, at least three different people have straight-up questioned whether I, personally, the human being behind the keyboard, have the capacity to form human relationships.

Well this snake is eating its own tail. If you perpetuate the sour attitude others will respond as you have and everyone will be sour. Having precious experiences color todays exchanges isn't fair to anyone and won't lead to anything constructive.

 

[pemerton]

I don't mind the occasional mind affecting ability. If every check starts dictating how I'm allowed to react, no thank you.

Is this meant to bury, then, or to praise, Burning Wheel?

 

[SableWyvern]

Again: no.

It is that...let me put as much emphasis on this as I possibly can...

IF

If something concerning happens, what can be done? What options do I have? How can I expect accountability? How can I ask for redress? How can I work toward a fixed situation, where the concerns have been properly dealt with in a way any reasonable person could call fair and forthright?

If someone in my group did something "concerning" I would talk it out with them. I am absolutely certain I would quite easily come to a mutually satisfactory accommodation with any member of my RPG group over any concerning thing that might occur in a session.

Worst case, we might have an extended discussion over the period between sessions.

No special oversight is required to reach this accommodation, this is just the members of the group interacting with each other as mature adults and friends. I hold myself accountable to them and I trust them to hold themselves accountable to me. We do not need a higher power to redress grievances, especially not for anything that will occur over our time spent playing games of the imagination.

Every single time I ever bring this up, it's always dismissively as either "wow bro, guess you can't trust anyone, that must suck", "the game doesn't work if you don't trust the DM so you just gotta do that", or "don't play with jerks". Never--literally never, not once, in any of these threads, has ANYONE on the other side actually stopped to take my concerns seriously. Literally actually never.

If you can't trust people than you shouldn't play games that require trust (such as mine). If there are styles of games that allow you to overcome your inability to trust, you should play those games. If you find trust is an issue in every game and you are seeking a way to resolve this, I have no answer for you.

I can take your concern seriously, but I can't offer you any solution, because the only one I have is to trust. I wouldn't even know where to begin if I was expected to game without trust, and I wouldn't want to begin anywhere, because I can't imagine it would be much fun.

Is it any wonder I'm suspicious? Literally not one of you has EVER stopped to empathize, to understand, to be like, "Okay, let's talk about it. What would you want to do? How would you approach this?" It's always either insulting me for being some kind of mentally stunted freak, blithely ignoring any possible concern whatsoever with (as Lord Acton put it) "the office sanctifies the holder", or pretending that the only two possibilities are saints and jerks and nothing else ever occurs anywhere in-between.

I can't offer you any solutions about how you play without trust, because I simply will not play without it. If I had your inability to trust, I would not continue to run or participate in roleplaying sessions. Not even with a game designed to eliminate the need for trust, because such a game would have lost the things about TTRPGs that appeal to me the most.

I can't offer you solutions as to how you might go about playing games in some other way, because I don't understand the appeal of those ways and have no useful advise to give you.

There are other options. You can have someone who is playing fast and loose with the trust given to them because they believe it's the right thing to do, or the necessary thing, or that the ends justify the means. You can have someone who is accidentally giving off really really really bad vibes even though not one single thing they're doing is actually a problem. You can have someone who is usually entirely wonderful, but every now and then they hear that siren song, to just this once, just for a moment, "bend the rules". Etc., etc., etc.

Then play games with your other options and I will play my games that require trust. There is no point asking me, "but how would you adapt your game if someone plays who doesn't trust you?" because I would not adapt my game for that. If you can't trust me, you should not game at my table, nor can I see any reason why you would want to.

There are an infinitude of ways for a GM to be less-than-saintly but in no way actually a jerk. To have zip-zero-nada ill intent, but still acting for ill. I, as a social person, want to be able to fix that. I don't want my only options to be "well I guess I just have to take it" or the outright nuclear option of leaving.

But those are your options. My table requires trust, so either you trust or you leave. Not playing at my table is something you've managed you're entire life, so it shouldn't be a problem that you continue to not play at my table.

But every single time, that's literally the only two options you folks give me. Those are the only answers. Either I do nothing, or the game is completely over. I want other options! I want to know that I can work things out with people! I want to build and maintain trust, and doing that REQUIRES give and take! But as it's been presented, literally every single time, there is no give and take--or, at least, the give is all on one side and the take is all on the other, unless you blow up your participation in that game completely. Either you accept literally everything, regardless of how concerning it is, because the only possible answer you'll ever get is "just trust me bro", or you leave, destroying your participation in that game and probably hurting some relationships in the doing.

I'm not giving or taking any options from you. I'm talking about how things work at my table, where you are not even a participant. What I do at my table simply does not affect you. How you handle things at whatever tables you do play it is between you that the people you actually game with, and my opinions should have zero bearing on how you choose to interact with each other.

What type of option do you feel I should be giving you, beyond the option to play the games you like, in whatever style you like, with people you are comfortable gaming with, with no interference from me?

You do need to accept that I'm going to continue running my games my way, whether you like that way or not, because that's exactly what I'm going to do. But you absolutely should not let this fact affect your life in any way (certainly not negatively), because it's not going to, unless you allow to it. The way I have my fun should not upset you or make you feel belittled or unimportant. I'm sorry if it does, but I honestly don't understand why and I encourage you to not care about my opinions in any way, if caring about them bothers you. Nothing I say on this board (apart, perhaps from this last paragraph here) is important enough for anyone to be letting it affect them in any significant way.

 

[pemerton]

If you, @pemerton, berate a local mechanic, this could result in the mechanic relenting and giving you what you want. Or, it could result in the mechanic bristling, and refusing to do further business with you. Either is possible. If the mechanic is at liberty to react in either fashion (or in some other way you haven't thought of), how are you to know which will occur?

This is not in any way intended to be a smart-alec response. I genuinely don't understand why you expect that, in this hypothetical sandbox where the interaction with the blacksmith is taking place, you should always know what the exact outcome of your actions are before the outcomes occur, any more than in my real-world restatement of the scenario. Just like in the real world, consequences follow actions, they don't precede them.

I'm not talking about what the character does or doesn't know. I'm talking about what the player can know, as the player of a game.

I mean, if my PC is 5th level, then I the player know that even if the blacksmith picks up their hammer and clocks me with it, I can't be killed in one blow. (Because I have too many hit points.) And that knowledge, as a player, helps me make rational choices about what actions to declare, what risks to take, etc.

One some approaches to RPGing, in the blacksmith scenario I know that - if the GM doesn't just decide to have the blacksmith acquiesce - then I am entitled to make some sort of roll (say, a Persuasion check) - so I can bring my resources to bear to influence the outcome.

If the GM is just deciding, though, then it doesn't seem to me that I as a player am exercising much control over this particular moment of shared fiction creation.

I'd say there it's more a question of, even if the players can't connect the dots in the here and now, the DM is able to explain later how the dots in fact connect and have it be consistent with the already-established fiction.

This is hardly a mantra for player-driven RPGing, though. It's GM-control in the moment of play followed by an explanation from the GM after the event!

 

[pemerton]

*Play to find out is not agency. Deciding or directly influencing what happens next is agency."

Agreed. Though there can be more than that, too. As I've posted upthread (making the analogy to other games like bridge and chess), agency can also be achieved by using your moves to constrain and guide another's moves, such that when they make their moves it achieves your purpose.

 

[pemerton]

It's not impossible, but it runs the risk of undermining the successful haggle, so it'd really depend on what's at stake in the game and what the character's beliefs are. Because getting your intent on a successful roll is sacrosanct in BW, I'd personally be disinclined to have this happen that night and save it as an option for later (maybe as a result of a failed roll).

For me, it's not just a failed roll, but also the players having staked their win again - eg having their PCs taunt the horse trader that they got one over him!