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

[Thomas Shey]

I'm mostly just annoyed that design and creative authority are so closely linked in the zeitgeist. I want more complete and better thought through rules, I'm simply not interested in compromising the "model an interactive fictional world" design goal, and hover between disinterested and confused whenever narrativist play priorities are explained.

And the first half of this is why I say you and I are coming from at least vaguely the same place, though I have some priorities you don't and (mostly) lack some you do these days.

 

[Thomas Shey]

What do you think is bad. Just sticking with D&D, do you think every edition's arrangement with GM power hasn't worked?

I think, by all evidence, the focus on that authority does more harm than good most of the time, because it teaches both GMs and players that challenging GM decisions is bad behavior. It doesn't help it often goes with the assumption moving the game along at pace trumps any problems and player or players may be having.

I mean seriously, how long does it take to listen to a player either pointing out the actual rule (in rules adjucation) or suggesting an ad-hoc ruling has bad consequences (and in the latter case looking around the room and asking "How many agree with them?").

And there are all kinds of knock-on effects on this; I've seen people (including if I recall correctly a couple on here) who will object to a player generating a character defining things about their home village (or even in some extreme cases, about their family) not because they're setting it up for some in game advantage of any account, but just because they've internalized that anything outside the character itself is firmly in the GM's complete control.

I mean, I'm not suggesting all trad games should go over to some (to some people) radical group decision making process about everything; that suits some people and others really don't want to deal with it. But the heavy top-down focus doesn't seem to do any real favors for most groups.

 

[Bedrockgames]

I'm mostly just annoyed that design and creative authority are so closely linked in the zeitgeist. I want more complete and better thought through rules, I'm simply not interested in compromising the "model an interactive fictional world" design goal, and hover between disinterested and confused whenever narrativist play priorities are explained.

Out of curiosity, what were your feelings on something like 3rd edition?

 

[Thomas Shey]

Out of curiosity, what were your feelings on something like 3rd edition?

My own feeling was it had advanced the design for D&D significantly, but was still hobbled by the system's excessive tendency toward one-off exception based design.

 

[Bedrockgames]

My own feeling was it had advanced the design for D&D significantly, but was still hobbled by the system's excessive tendency toward one-off exception based design.

This is one of the reasons I asked. I feel like there are two things being discussed, and they are a bit related. I will start out saying I do think GM authority is pretty central to what made D&D work and helped distinguish it for me from things like boardgames (I mentioned before that fiery moment in my mind when I first played, and it was all about how the GM being empowered to respond to me saying what I wanted to do, to take that anywhere, made the experience feel boundless and immersive for me). But I think different editions have approached this in different ways. It seems like we are largely talking about rules light versus, not rules heavy, but rules comprehensiveness; and High GM authority versus checked GM authority. I mentioned 3E because I quite like 3E, and while I had my complaints, one of the things it did, was put such emphasis on rules and the GM doing things like balancing out encounters, as well as empowering players through things like class dipping and the rise of 'wish lists' that it really did shift the zeitgeist for a time (I would even say 5E's lighter, more empowered GM approach feels like a response to this, as well as a response to things that were happening in 4E). I guess where I am going, is 1) part of this is there is a baked in component to the game that will probably make this always an issue for some folks to an extend (the game functions around high GM authority, and for many people, whether folks think this is good or bad), that is the game. But it has also approached it in different ways and there have been editions people came together on from different camps, and the pendulum is always swinging back and forth. 3E strikes me as a possible middle ground here, though perhaps others will disagree. Simply because I know I was invested in it and enjoyed it (wasn't thrilled with teh AP adventure structure that become the norm, and I think WOTC isn't good at adventure content, but the system worked and gave me years of successful campaigns). And I feel like that was also a time where I felt as GM I had the least full authority in teh game I had had in some time (and sometimes this was annoying because I felt like I was working for the players more, but on the other hand, the system was so flexible you could use it to create any campaign world you wanted: I had a great time putting together wuxia campaigns during 3E, for example, because of the way multi classing worked. And there was an energy in the fandom too at that time.

Obviously there were other downsides. Like it was the height of the d20 era and me trying to get players to play HKAT! was nearly impossible if it didn't have a d20 logo (which it did not). I even had to run Cthulhu as a d20 just to do Cthulhu (though in fairness that was actually a pretty good d20 product all things considered)

 

[zakael19]

I think, by all evidence, the focus on that authority does more harm than good most of the time, because it teaches both GMs and players that challenging GM decisions is bad behavior. It doesn't help it often goes with the assumption moving the game along at pace trumps any problems and player or players may be having.

I mean seriously, how long does it take to listen to a player either pointing out the actual rule (in rules adjucation) or suggesting an ad-hoc ruling has bad consequences (and in the latter case looking around the room and asking "How many agree with them?").

And there are all kinds of knock-on effects on this; I've seen people (including if I recall correctly a couple on here) who will object to a player generating a character defining things about their home village (or even in some extreme cases, about their family) not because they're setting it up for some in game advantage of any account, but just because they've internalized that anything outside the character itself is firmly in the GM's complete control.

I mean, I'm not suggesting all trad games should go over to some (to some people) radical group decision making process about everything; that suits some people and others really don't want to deal with it. But the heavy top-down focus doesn't seem to do any real favors for most groups.

The 2024 DM guideline’s emphasis on “will this change/ruling make the game more fun for the the table / improve the game? If not yes to both (and get feedback from your players), don’t it.” Is pretty neat. It spends a lot of words on establishing the idea of mutual respect, communication, ensuring all players are heard, etc. it also explicitly calls out the idea of a social contract around what we’re here to play, and that if you’re here to run an adventure and the players decide they just don’t want that - have a chat, sounds like wires got crossed or you need to re-tailor your hooks.

Not bad stuff really!

 

[Thomas Shey]

This is one of the reasons I asked. I feel like there are two things being discussed, and they are a bit related. I will start out saying I do think GM authority is pretty central to what made D&D work and helped distinguish it for me from things like boardgames (I mentioned before that fiery moment in my mind when I first played, and it was all about how the GM being empowered to respond to me saying what I wanted to do, to take that anywhere, made the experience feel boundless and immersive for me). But I think different editions have approached this in different ways. It seems like we are largely talking about rules light versus, not rules heavy, but rules comprehensiveness; and High GM authority versus checked GM authority.

To a point; while I prefer a more rules heavy approach (as I've noted I think rules light games are producing more regular opportunities for bad decisions because they force more ad-hoc decisions more regularly if they're not being played in a distinctly schematic way) that's not been my primary focus in this thread, which is my about your latter clause.

I mentioned 3E because I quite like 3E, and while I had my complaints, one of the things it did, was put such emphasis on rules and the GM doing things like balancing out encounters, as well as empowering players through things like class dipping and the rise of 'wish lists' that it really did shift the zeitgeist for a time

Honestly, the virtues it had to me was that it provided a lot more consistency in some areas and more character definitional tools than prior editions had had (there may have been some of that buried in various 2e class books, as I was completely out of D&D by then). Unfortunately, as I mentioned in my prior response it was fighting with the fact that things like the feat and spell structure (and class abilities) were so ad-hoc that trying to keep things balanced was a design nightmare even from the start and spiraled completely out of control over time.

(I would even say 5E's lighter, more empowered GM approach feels like a response to this, as well as a response to things that were happening in 4E). I guess where I am going, is 1) part of this is there is a baked in component to the game that will probably make this always an issue for some folks to an extend (the game functions around high GM authority, and for many people, whether folks think this is good or bad), that is the game.

But that's the gig: it doesn't have to be. Nothing about the mechanical structure of the game nor even the type of play process it has requires that. Its just habit (and thus relevant to the actual core topic of this thread).

Obviously there were other downsides. Like it was the height of the d20 era and me trying to get players to play HKAT! was nearly impossible if it didn't have a d20 logo (which it did not). I even had to run Cthulhu as a d20 just to do Cthulhu (though in fairness that was actually a pretty good d20 product all things considered)

Well, that's a different discussion about how desirable the dominance of D&D is on how it impacts other parts of the hobby, but its not really directly relevant to the topic at hand.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

I will address these points when I have more time but I want to say this isn't a tactic. I genuinely like Hillfolk and I usually bring it up when people make condescending remarks about a lack of exposure to other games. Now I am definitely not a fan of Burning Wheel, Blades in the Dark or Apocalypse World, but a lot of times, people talk as if I only play D&D or something. And to be clear, I've read Blades in the Dark (it didn't appeal to me so I didn't play it, but I can see why some people would like it). Dungeon World I bounced off hard. And Burning Wheel I have zero awareness of except what i have seen posted about it in these threads (which is why I was often asking questions about specific mechanics). But Hillfolk I bring up 1) because I like it, and 2) because it is the polar opposite of trad, so it is relevant if we are talking about other ways of empowering players (also I think it is a game I would like others to explore, particularly people on my side of the fence because I think it has great potential to be a narrative system that would appeal to a trad player due to how it handles immersive elements)

I probably need to clarify. I'm sure you play Hillfolk because it appeals to you. I guess what I mean is, you point out your play of that game like it immunizes your analysis of other forms of play from being criticized. Honestly, I'm sure playing it gave you some different perspectives, I'm not super familiar with it, so I can't comment on that much. There are simply different experiences we all have, and to say we are supposed to only talk about them using certain words in certain ways won't fly.

 

[bloodtide]

I think, by all evidence, the focus on that authority does more harm than good most of the time, because it teaches both GMs and players that challenging GM decisions is bad behavior. It doesn't help it often goes with the assumption moving the game along at pace trumps any problems and player or players may be having.

I disagree. Too many players just want to ruin games for everyone with rants. It is all about them, and they will ruins everyone's good time and sit back and cackle. This is why you need a strong DM to get rid of such players quickly.

I mean seriously, how long does it take to listen to a player either pointing out the actual rule (in rules adjucation) or suggesting an ad-hoc ruling has bad consequences (and in the latter case looking around the room and asking "How many agree with them?").

Somewhere between five minutes and five hours. Though five minutes is bad enough if the player does it 10-15 times a game: that is over an hour of listing to a player rant and rave.

As an iron fisted DM I don't allow any rants at all during the game. Any other time, sure, I'm happy to make some time so you can come over and rant and rave. Amazingly few players ever do this.

 

[Umbran]

As an iron fisted DM I don't allow any rants at all during the game. Any other time, sure, I'm happy to make some time so you can come over and rant and rave. Amazingly few players ever do this.

The choice of the loaded word "rant" is interesting.