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

[Thomas Shey]

I don't think we need game rules to prevent inconsistent ad-hoc decisions. That's kind of the whole point of talking about how we run games. Conversely, if the rules are so restrictive that it prevents a GM from inconsistent ad-hoc decisions, either I don't understand how that would work (which is quite possible) or it would feel restrictive to me as a GM.

Matters of degree matter. If I have to explain why that's true, I kind of doubt you're going to get it. And I'm not much interested in a GM who has to have such loose rules that they otherwise feel restricted, to be dead honest.

Basically, I don't see any reason at all a game should not have enough and detailed enough rules that having to make ad-hoc decisions (and to be clear, I'm not talking about deciding difficulty numbers though there ought to be enough guidance there there's rarely confusion) isn't an unusual case. If you do, well, that's you.

 

[Thomas Shey]

Where are you people finding such stable groups?! Stop hogging them!

Well, in my case its a group composed of people I've been playing with for anywhere from a quarter to a half century, and consist of people without children or much in the way of outside obligations on a weekend. Some of them play significantly more often than I do.

 

[Faolyn]

I'm honestly still pretty fuzzy as to what benefit is received from adding additional constraints to the GM. Why would you want restrictions on what you can do running the game?

In some cases, the constraints help to focus the GM, allowing them to GM more effectively. An example would be in PbtA games, where "here's what you can do" and "here's when you can do it". Even though, when you actually read the GM's rules for a PbtA game, almost everything on the "GM Moves" table is the stuff that GMs of most games do all the time, actually having it spelled out is very useful.

In other cases, being a GM on god mode isn't that much fun.

 

[Faolyn]

No. That's where you are wrong. Good enough isn't the objective.

A system that is robust enough to generate results independently of the DM is the objective. To create a setting that functions like a machine (I believe that was the direct quote). To create a setting where the DM no longer is creating stuff that is "good enough" but rather the setting ITSELF is so complex, so crafted, that plausible results are generated BY THE SETTING ITSELF.

That's the objective that I'm rejecting.

And again, nobody has said that the setting generates the results. What has been said is that they go with what the logical result of the PCs actions would be.

 

[Bedrockgames]

Only people can pretend to be people and have it be any good.

100 times this. I used to play the Sierra games in the 80s before I found D&D. I loved Police Quest, Kings Quest, Space Quest, Manhunter, etc. Just from my experience, mechanics that sit in for humans when it comes to NPCs and people, feel like a step backwards to me towards these kinds of games. I loved them, and obviously they are old, video games are way better now, but it is so seamless when a person plays a person. But if we are just trying to figure out what NPCs do...I find the best way is to do what i think the NPC would do. Now I sometimes do use tables. They have their uses, and it is also fine to incorporate some randomness to factor in people doing odd things. I just think there is a replacement though for the Gm running the character (I mostly use tables to save time, if I had more time to think everything through, I would be running all people in the setting that were in any way relevant)

 

[AlViking]

Matters of degree matter. If I have to explain why that's true, I kind of doubt you're going to get it. And I'm not much interested in a GM who has to have such loose rules that they otherwise feel restricted, to be dead honest.

Basically, I don't see any reason at all a game should not have enough and detailed enough rules that having to make ad-hoc decisions (and to be clear, I'm not talking about deciding difficulty numbers though there ought to be enough guidance there there's rarely confusion) isn't an unusual case. If you do, well, that's you.

If I remember right you were the one going on about guardrails to safeguard the game, but I have yet to see how any safeguards would work or what it would add to the game. I get that there are different approaches to what is important to a game, there are games that are more collaborative. We all have different preferences but if you have one it should not be that difficult to come up with a simple explanation and example.

Also, that last sentence makes no sense with all the negatives ... reversing the negatives a bit I get "we should have rules so ad-hoc decisions occur regularly"? Which mean much of anything. But then again apparently I can't understand how other games are structured to prevent ... something that I wouldn't understand.

 

[zakael19]

And again, nobody has said that the setting generates the results. What has been said is that they go with what the logical result of the PCs actions would be.

I appreciated @robertsconley walking through way he evaluated the decision space around the noblewomen reacting to possibilities. Arraying the set of outcomes the players would expect based on what they knew of her, what the reasonable outcomes were, and then picking the one of those that if I remember correctly he felt would be the most interesting for further play. It showed how at least for him it’s a combination of heuristics, not just “what does the world demand” but “of the most reasonable and consistent actions based on my setting and the NPC - let me pick the one that will further an interesting table experience.”

I think that contrasts well with the heuristic I’d use for my play which is “what choice would most challenge what the characters hold dear” or something similar. Same starting point of “what makes sense for this NPC to do” but as I narrow it, the focus circles back to those espoused “flags” on the character sheets. I think that’s a good example of the same starting point in abstract encountering a different creative direction / mechanical trigger and resulting in potentially different GM choices.

 

[zakael19]

If I remember right you were the one going on about guardrails to safeguard the game, but I have yet to see how any safeguards would work or what it would add to the game. I get that there are different approaches to what is important to a game, there are games that are more collaborative. We all have different preferences but if you have one it should not be that difficult to come up with a simple explanation and example.

Also, that last sentence makes no sense with all the negatives ... reversing the negatives a bit I get "we should have rules so ad-hoc decisions occur regularly"? Which mean much of anything. But then again apparently I can't understand how other games are structured to prevent ... something that I wouldn't understand.

Narrativist games at least stridently yell at the GM to not prep plot and force directions of play on the players. I’ve seen OSR games explicitly state the same thing. Does that count?

 

[JConstantine]

Even though, when you actually read the GM's rules for a PbtA game, almost everything on the "GM Moves" table is the stuff that GMs of most games do all the time, actually having it spelled out is very useful.

PbtA games' GM Principles seem to me to be a explicit codification of what has generally been considered GM best practices. They're like the GMing equivalent of painting by numbers - that's not meant to be disparaging; paint by numbers kits exist for reason. People often think that creative endeavours are born of talent, but in actuality they require skill, honed and developed through practice. Talent as an innate quality certainly helps, but it only acts as a baseline for learned skills, not a ceiling. Codification allows for learning and teaching creative skills and once a person has mastered the fundamentals, they can push the bounds through experimentation, like jazz.

And of course, the irony is that those GM best practices that PbtA games codify as rules were cultivated through practice by old guard GMs like @robertsconley

 

[AlViking]

Narrativist games at least stridently yell at the GM to not prep plot and force directions of play on the players. I’ve seen OSR games explicitly state the same thing. Does that count?

But that's just a general approach that can be applied to other systems as well if you want.