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

[robertsconley]

Again, so what? It's the GM's job to present that world. We all have different ways of doing that, some arguably better than others, but in the end we still have to present a setting and stage on which the players' characters can perform.

I'll cop to "odd"; I've been called much worse.

But I don't see how this makes me careless in my attitude toward my role in the game.

Perhaps this will help in the discussion you are having.

In my Living World Sandbox campaigns, referee responsibility is implicit in every carefully prepared procedure and explicitly defined mechanic that I use.

My setting is constructed using detailed procedures, including random tables, logical extrapolation from established facts, predefined NPC motivations, and the consistent application of prior decisions. This structured approach is designed to minimize subconscious biases or careless decision-making by providing objective references at every stage. The group can later revisit these decisions for transparency if questions arise.

When a situation arises, such as the players returning to a previously visited town, my referee responsibilities are already embedded within these predefined structures. The outcomes naturally follow from established conditions and procedures rather than moment-to-moment subjective referee choices.

Moreover, I consistently advocate that referees cultivate strong leadership skills, including coaching, facilitation, and small-group management. Developing these skills further ensures referees maintain awareness of their responsibilities and actively promote careful, thoughtful, and responsible presentation of their game worlds.

As for the claim that referees who approach their settings objectively risk ‘self-deception’, that notion is fundamentally misguided. Such inflammatory claims ignore the clear distinction between intentional, method-driven worldbuilding and careless, arbitrary decision-making. A referee who relies on transparent, documented, and procedurally sound methodologies isn't deceiving themselves; they're consciously leveraging structure and logic to deliver impartial adjudication.

To summarize clearly for future reference:

• Responsibility: Implicitly embedded through clear procedures and consistent logic.
• Transparency: Explicitly guaranteed by openly defined rules, objective mechanics, and good leadership practices.
• Self-Deception: Effectively prevented by deliberate procedures, documented preparation, and intentional leadership practices, not indulged through careless arbitrariness or arbitrary dramatic convenience.

Claims that structured and objective referee practices reflect ‘self-deception’ misunderstand (or intentionally mischaracterize) the deliberate rigor involved. Referees using explicit, impartial methods combined with strong leadership and thoughtful procedures not only acknowledge their responsibility, they exemplify it.

Edit: Also see @SableWyvern post below about Suspension of Disbelief. Good Catch should have remembered that, given the ludicrousness of even bringing up self-deception.

 

[SableWyvern]

Some participants my be interested to learn about Suspension of Disbelief.

Or not. If anyone would prefer to believe that pretending to themselves that something could be real even though they know it is not is some kind of obstacle to participating in the TTRPG hobby, that is certainly their prerogative.

 

[AlViking]

So now we've gotten to the point were it's being suggested that GMs somehow belive their campaign world is real? Good grief that's some of the most ridiculous accusations I've seen. The hyperbole has been strong on this thread but this wins the cake.

All because someone has to "prove" that people can't possibly be reasonably objective when building worlds that grow, evolve and respond to the actions of the characters and other events. Or something, I really don't get how implying outright insanity became relevant to any conversation.

 

[Bedrockgames]

So now we've gotten to the point were it's being suggested that GMs somehow belive their campaign world is real? Good grief that's some of the most ridiculous accusations I've seen. The hyperbole has been strong on this thread but this wins the cake.

All because someone has to "prove" that people can't possibly be reasonably objective when building worlds that grow, evolve and respond to the actions of the characters and other events. Or something, I really don't get how implying outright insanity became relevant to any conversation.

Yeah. Writers, directors, creative people of all kinds treat their worlds as if they are real places for the purposes of breathing life into them. That this keeps getting interpreted as an inability to discern reality from fiction, continues to be frustrating. It is called imagination. It is a big part of the game. And I don't think you can dissect it from the other parts of play like game mechanics. You have to account for the imaginative element too

 

[Hussar]

So now we've gotten to the point were it's being suggested that GMs somehow belive their campaign world is real? Good grief that's some of the most ridiculous accusations I've seen. The hyperbole has been strong on this thread but this wins the cake.

All because someone has to "prove" that people can't possibly be reasonably objective when building worlds that grow, evolve and respond to the actions of the characters and other events. Or something, I really don't get how implying outright insanity became relevant to any conversation.

DIdn't you JUST give an example of how your world can't be changed by the player in response to his created character?

 

[AlViking]

DIdn't you JUST give an example of how your world can't be changed by the player in response to his created character?

What does that have to do with the price of tea in China or the post you responded to?

My campaign world isn't built for any specific group or character. In order to keep my campaign fiction consistent I have notes on various regions that I keep up to date. Part of those notes include how the world responded to what the characters did, sometimes in major ways, sometimes minor.

We discuss what type of campaign overall themes the groups want in session 0 so I can pick an appropriate region. But I'm not going to add orcs to a region that historically hasn't had them.

So I have no idea what you're trying to get at.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

Does this mean that you're secretly Vincent Baker?

No, no! @Old Fezziwig is secretly Vincent Baker, bald mustacheless Vincent Baker.

 

[pemerton]

for the claim that referees who approach their settings objectively risk ‘self-deception’

There is no such claim.

The claim is that a referee who seeks to fool themselves that the setting is real (so they end up in a situation comparable to the child who thinks that Santa Claus is real) is not engaging with their responsibility for their part in play.

To stick with the Santa Claus analogy, a referee has (at least) two options available, but they are mutually exclusive:

*The referee can seek to emulate the children, believing in the reality of their own fictional creation;

*The referee can seek to emulate the adults, doing their best to present a versimilitudinous and engaging fiction to the players.​

Taking on the second approach - and so, for instance, putting on a red shirt and stuffing a cushion down inside it before sneaking into the children's room late at night - helps preserve the fiction for the children. But it depends upon the adult recognising that fiction is not real, and taking deliberate steps of authorship.

To turn from the analogy back to actual RPGing techniques: suppose a GM uses random tables, and extrapolates very carefully, and does their best to create a coherent, consistent setting. And then play in the setting just sucks. (I've had this experience as a player. I may have come close to it as a GM, but I don't think I've ever quite got there, thankfully.) For instance, the setting is boring; or, the GM insists that the players start at 1st level in <this place> but there are no realistic options for 1st level PCs to do interesting and exciting things in <this place>. Or suppose that the players have their PCs do a thing - maybe they decide to be burglars - and the GM has the setting respond "realistically" - the burgled victims higher scrying mages who track down the PCs, who are then captured or killed by hired bounty hunters against whom 1st level PCs have no real chance of survival.

The lack of success of such a game can't be blamed on the setting, or the setting responding realistically to what the players had their PCs do. The GM has to take responsibility for their authorial contributions to play, just as we expect players to take responsibility for theirs. (Eg in a dungeon crawl game, we expect players who open doors willy-nilly to wear the potential consequences without too much complaint.)

I'm pretty confident that, in what I've said in this post, I'm also capturing @hawkeyefan's sentiment from upthread.

 

[hawkeyefan]

My (ii) is also my understanding of what @hawkeyefan is getting at in saying that a good GM should be thinking of the work the fiction will be doing in the play of the game.

Yes, absolutely. My goal as a GM is to present a plausible world and scenarios that follow from what’s already happened in play and so on… but it’s also to provide the players with a game to play.

That means my decisions about the world are not only based on plausibility and the fiction of the game world, but also on playability. I want to present the players with situations that offer meaningful and interesting choices to make.

My decisions as GM affect both the fiction and the game. They’re my decisions. I can’t pawn them off on “the world” or some such nonsense.

If I decide, then it’s on me, whatever methods I may consider.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

You list operational concerns etc. as if they are somehow unrelated to and-or disconnected from the goals etc. of the characters.

This is not true.

Operational concerns, equipment, supplies and the like are elements that help determine the relative ease or difficulty of achieving those goals; doors and traps are simply obstacles. I just don't see the point of skipping over all those details.

Yeah, that can be true to a degree. I mean, in Dungeon World (which I am much more familiar with) equipment can definitely matter. If you are deep underground and run out of torches, that's not a good thing. However, the focus is unlikely to be on the mechanical disadvantages of stumbling around in the dark, Dungeon World doesn't actually spell any out, but more things like "I swore I would bring the halfling back to his mother" is now definitely in doubt when you're not sure where the heck said halfling IS in the inky blackness. Not to say that the operational concern is missing, the fiction associated with stumbling in the dark is most certainly far more rife with bad consequences than the one where you can see.

So, yes, a DW player will undoubtedly seek to avoid "we ran out of light sources", and that requires managing your inventory. HOWEVER, once again, things getting used up is not measured by any fixed formal notion of time, but happens when the GM makes a move. There may well be a sense of "yeah, you been milking that torch long enough, it starts to sputter" because DW has principles related to honoring the fiction, so that we can talk about when we're likely to be pushing our luck on torches.

It all hangs together, and it CAN be pretty operational, yet at the same time there's some level at which it is all related to PC concerns.