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

[AbdulAlhazred]

See, but, I keep trying to tie this back to the idea of "just trust the DM" and "bad DM's are easy to spot". The problem with that all revolves around the point that in trad games, the DM decision making process is largely a black box. It's really, really hard to know and asking doesn't really help very much because very often you will get the same answer from both good and bad DM's, just for different reasons.

I am absolutely sure that the DM in my example saw nothing wrong with what she did. And, considering the groups that she had afterwards seemed pretty happy, there is no reason to think that she would have seen any problem. I'm sure that she just shrugged, said good riddance to bad players and kept right on doing exactly what she was doing.

Which, frankly, seems to be the core of most of the advice here. Don't like what the DM is doing? Walk. The advice never seems to be, "If your players are unhappy, it's quite possibly because you, the DM, are doing something wrong." And any attempt to bring transparency to the process is met with a great deal of resistance. "Oh, I can't tell you that, it will ruin the surprise of the campaign". As if "the surprise of the campaign" was more important than having happy players.

Yeah, and I think the idea that you are simply a 'good DM' and thus should just do your thing, is somewhat flawed. I've known a couple of people who were both good (or great) GMs, but yet had multiple, even serious, flaws. While I think it is certainly better if those people do what is successful, I fail to believe that they couldn't further perfect their craft by really examining their techniques, objectives, outcomes, etc. and trying new stuff based on what they saw. And indeed, they, and I, all improved over the years. My own GMing is almost totally different than it was 40 years ago. I could do what I did then, 5e would support it fine, and there are plenty of groups willing to play that way, but I can do better.

 

[Faolyn]

Ask and ye shall receive:


Which is largely the start of the conversation chain that led to my very cherry picked response being called out. After all, the quoted part of my response missed 90% of the response in order to focus on a single sentence out of context.

I have him blocked, so I'm not going through the effort of unearthing every one of his posts to ensure the exact context, but it certainly doesn't look like he's talking about all games. It looks like he's talking about one game: D&D.

 

[AlViking]

On a quick review of the El Capitan Wikipedia page, there seem to be over 50 people named as having climbed in the past 70-odd years. There are also said to have been over 30 fatalities in the past 120-odd years.

Suppose, just for the sake of my maths, that there are another 50 people who have successfully climbed it but haven't made it onto the Wikipedia page - that would make the fatality rate 1 in 4.

In D&D terms, that means a fatal fall on a roll of 5 or lower on the d20. Supposing that the climbers have bonuses of around +10 (good STR, trained in Athletics, perhaps Expertise), that suggests a DC of around 15, perhaps 20 if not all failures are adjudicated as falling, and/or if climbs that used more elaborate equipment are treated as having been made with Advantage.

And on the issues of the GM revealing DCs: you say that "even in my young and stupid days there's no way I would have considered climbing this" - doesn't that suggest that an experienced PC might be able to intuit difficulties?

And as for the presence or lack of handholds on the route that the character chooses to try - isn't that what the d20 roll is for? (Similarly to how it works in the other sorts of situations I mentioned upthread.)

Nit-picking the example doesn't change anything. If a character wants to climb something like El Capitan it's not going to be easy. Those 50 people? They are pro climbers with gear that characters don't typically have and all climbers in today's world are following established routes discovered mapped, and in many cases with climbing aids such as bolts and pitons left in place.

It doesn't change anything. It's still up to the DM in D&D to determine the difficulty, how much the PCs can learn and everything else about the climb. Just like everything else external to the character.

 

[zakael19]

Yeah, and I think the idea that you are simply a 'good DM' and thus should just do your thing, is somewhat flawed. I've known a couple of people who were both good (or great) GMs, but yet had multiple, even serious, flaws. While I think it is certainly better if those people do what is successful, I fail to believe that they couldn't further perfect their craft by really examining their techniques, objectives, outcomes, etc. and trying new stuff based on what they saw. And indeed, they, and I, all improved over the years. My own GMing is almost totally different than it was 40 years ago. I could do what I did then, 5e would support it fine, and there are plenty of groups willing to play that way, but I can do better.

I'm always excited to read new ideas and concepts about how to manage a game. Wanderhome's ideas of "guiding," Dogs in the Vineyard's really clearly stated ideas about stakes and conflict escalation, Mouse Guard's concepts around belief and instinct, FITD games that weave in all sorts of different concepts from across the scene to new combinations, OSR concepts of how to portray a world with integrity, blogs and forum posts and all sorts of other resources.

Like, I'm sure I can always improve. I'm not the same GM I was a year ago, and I'm sure in another year I'll have even more ideas and concepts to pull upon to create the conversational flow various groups of players want.

Will I run another game of Blades after my current one wraps? Probably not! The setting and themes just don't do much for me, but I'm happy I'm trying it. Did it take me trying like 3 different FITD games & Harper comes out with his Deep Cuts iteration for me to like really get what it was doing and feel at home running it? Yup.

Edit: actually, the single thing that's probably benefited my running was the simple "Praise something about the session (in the fiction or around the table) that you enjoyed or appreciated, and a wish for future sessions: more _, less _, a chance to _, handling _ in a different way. This can be in the fiction or around the table. The GM will take notes." part of Stonetop's end of session move. It's explicit, pretty concise, and has been the most instrumental thing across my games of the group cohering and getting on the same page while also consistently establishing goals together. It's the easiest to weave into your game version of the "Stars and Wishes" concept, and makes for a great ritualistic ending of the night.

 

[SableWyvern]

Yeah, and I think the idea that you are simply a 'good DM' and thus should just do your thing, is somewhat flawed. I've known a couple of people who were both good (or great) GMs, but yet had multiple, even serious, flaws. While I think it is certainly better if those people do what is successful, I fail to believe that they couldn't further perfect their craft by really examining their techniques, objectives, outcomes, etc. and trying new stuff based on what they saw. And indeed, they, and I, all improved over the years. My own GMing is almost totally different than it was 40 years ago. I could do what I did then, 5e would support it fine, and there are plenty of groups willing to play that way, but I can do better.

I'm not sure that anyone has actually said you shouldn't give GMs feedback or ask questions. Someone may have, but most people seem to be in agreement that it is not only acceptable, but desirable, to ask for clarification if you have doubts about reasoning, technique, etc.

Most people also seem to agree that GMs should listen to such feedback with an open mind and make accommodations that will improve the game for everyone, wherever feasible.

The point of dispute appears to me to only appear when some of us say, "Having listened to feedback and honestly considered the player's concerns, it is acceptable for a GM to decide they're unwilling to alter the style with which they run the game."

There also seems to be a lesser dispute I seem to have noticed hints of, about whether or not it's OK for a GM to have the power to say, "For right now, we'll do it this way, to keep the game moving, we can discuss it in more detail later," but, in reality, that's just a subset of the above problem.

And, as per my previous post, I think the correct way to deal with these things is to set clear expectations up front so they're less likely to be a problem in the first place. I really feel most of the examples of issues that have been brought up in this thread only arise if people want different things from the game, so if the GM is clear about what they're offering and players don't choose to play unless they're comfortable with that, and any likely sticking points on those things are addressed and ironed out before play begins, I would expect a much smoother game in general.

 

[pemerton]

On glancing again at this post, I caught this.......

.....and I wonder if you're maybe saying the quiet part out loud; that some systems lean into a self-centered approach where it really is all about you-the-player (hence why they work best when there's just one player and the GM), and that's why they're not for everyone.

Yes, there is no one quite as self-centred as a Burning Wheel player! You've caught us out!

 

[Old Fezziwig]

Yes, there is no one quite as self-centred as a Burning Wheel player! You've caught us out!

It's like this pile of Helping Dice doesn't mean a damn thing.

 

[pemerton]

I was playing in a D&D campaign about the same time, and the DM was using Keep on the Borderlands as a base. No problems. The DM was very adamant that this was a sandbox type campaign with the players having a lot of freedom. The group decided to rob the jewel merchant in the Keep. We spent most of an entire session planning the heist, doing tons of RP in character, learning the layout of things, getting schedules all that sort of thing. We wrap up the session with the plan in place and we would play it out the next session. All week the players are talking about this. The entire group is really excited.

Next week starts and the jewel merchant has closed up shop and left in the middle of the night. No warning, no note, absolutely no trail left behind. Can't follow him, he's got too much of a lead.

I hope you enjoyed your agency as players!

 

[Thomas Shey]

My advice is:

• If you don't like what the GM is doing, mention it.
• If you don't like the answers you get, try and find a compromise solution.
• If you can't reach a solution that satisfies you, leave. No player should feel obligated to participate in a game they're not comfortable with, and hanging around with a group where a satisfactory compromise is not possible is unlikely to be much fun.

From the GMs perspective, I see:

• If a player has a problem, work with them to find a solution that works for them, if possible.
• If giving them what they need in this case would result in running a game in a style that you're not ready or willing to do, there is no need to just give them what they want regardless. A GM should never feel obligated to run a game in a fashion they're not comfortable with. If the player doesn't like your game, it's not as if they're required to stick around and play.

I have very little time for arguments that devolve down to, "I don't like this style of play, thus the GM shouldn't subject me to it," (that's a general comment, not directed specifically at you, @Hussar) because in most cases I don't think it's actually addressing the real issue.

Either:

• No one bothered to establish what the game would be about. Fault: Everyone. Solution: Go back to square one and work this out.
• The GM pitched a game of type A, but is running type B. Fault: GM. Solution: If people aren't happy with type B, the GM should probably make an effort to provide what was promised. If they're making a genuine effort, it's probably ideal if the players give them a chance to learn and get better, but if the game is just no fun or the GM is just not capable (or the GM is simply unwilling to run what was promised), then the players probably need to halt the campaign.
• The GM pitched a game of type A and is running type A, but a player wants it to be type B. Fault: Player. Solution: Unless everyone wants to change to type B, the player who wants type B either gets on board with type A or moves along. If it's a small group where participation of all parties is necessary, perhaps the game will need to be scratched/adjusted, but it would be a lot less disruptive in most cases if it's the unhappy player who adjusts and deals with it, rather than suggesting it's the GM's (and everyone else's) obligation to do so.
• The GM pitched a game of type A and is running type A, but none of the players are enjoying type A: Fault: Probably no one, really (I'm assuming the players are trying something new and didn't realise they wouldn't enjoy this). Sometimes things just don't work out like we expect. Solution: If the players are confident that they just don't like type A, adjust the style or start again. If it's a GM skill issue, the players may choose to give the GM a chance to work through this and get better, but they're not under any obligation to do so for any particular length of time.

Note that "fault" doesn't necessarily indicate intent to be disruptive or bad faith.

I liked this post generally, but I think there's at least a case or two more:

1. The GM pitched a game of a particular type, but they and the players had a different sense of what that pitch actually meant. This is actually pretty easy to have happen with overly short pitches, but can just happen because of bad terminology mismatches, too, or people's experiences with certain genres is different than others.

2. Related, you can have players who are finding the GM's execution, bluntly, substandard; they may be trying to execute the premise given but, well, just doing a bad job of it, maybe because its too different from what they're used to. The players should cut the GM some slack, but the GM also has to be willing to accept criticism here.

Finally, and this applies to a lot of this: the fact one player is challenging the GM doesn't always mean a single player only has the issue. There are players who are really hesitant to do things that feel confrontational, and may agree with a problem, but aren't going to want to join in on it.. At the other end of this, you can have players who go along with a premise because they don't want to be the guy who throws up blocks on a game, but aren't ever really happy with it. That's obviously largely their fault, but it can still impact the success of the game, and at some point the GM and the rest of the group either needs to get used to extracting what the Tigger player feels, get used to them being a regular problem, or eject them.

 

[zakael19]

I hope you enjoyed your agency as players!

No greater player agency then walking away .