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

[hawkeyefan]

Given your complaint about people pigeon-holing your approach, I think it would be wise to not lump Bedrock based on his advocacy of Robert's approach, especially since he's clearly stated that they diverge.

I’m not basing it solely on that. I’m basing it on his posts in this thread as well as his views on @robertsconley ’s games, and the overall views about sandbox play.

So, I picked up @Bedrockgames ' Righteous Blood, Ruthless Blades a few years ago, which led me to his blog, and the podcast he did with his co-author, so I have a greater familiarity with his approach than I do @robertsconley 's (though I recall reading a few articles on Robert's blog when I first started GMing 10 or so years ago), and here's the thing, it's no more a "vehicle for the GM's content" than BitD is. If you consider BitD to be player-driven, then so is Bedrock's sandbox, otherwise Blades isn't player-driven either.

I’ve not read Righteous Blood, Ruthless Blades, so I won’t comment on that. I expect it’s more different than you’re describing, based on @Bedrockgames overall comments and views in this discussion.

You've just described BitD.

No, I don’t think I have. I just ran a session Monday night. It didn’t involve a hook that I provided the players, it didn’t involve them interacting with my premade locations and NPCs.

 

[SableWyvern]

My experience is this: that someone (eg you, or @Micah Sweet) posts that you don't want any constraints on the GM.

I reply taking that literally, and - as per this post of yours I'm replying to - you tell me you don't mean it literally.

Then I try and talk to you about constraints, perhaps drawing comparisons to my own experience or conjecturing principles and heuristics that seem like they might be applicable to a trad-ish sandbox-sort of game. And you (or Micah Sweet or whomever) tell me that I'm wrong, and that no such principles or heuristics apply.

Hence pushing me back to the literal reading of the claim. Only to be told it's wrong. Etc.

So I guess I'll ask up front: what constraints do you think govern the GM playing in a trad-ish sandbox-sort of game?

The primary and most important constraint is the same one that applies in every game -- the agreement of the group as a whole to distribute power and authority in a particular way. People have mentioned constraints "with teeth" but this is the only constraint that actually has any teeth at all, and any other constraint can only exist inasmuch as it derives it's "toothiness" from from this one.

Any specific, more precise constraints on the GM, then, are ones that the group as a whole agrees should be there and is willing to enforce. I understand that Burning Wheel has a set of very clear and unambiguous rules about what the GM can and can't (or should and should not) do. If the group agrees to work within that framework, then they do. If the group doesn't agree to abide by these official, default Burning Wheel constraints, or they do agree but then the GM ignores them and the group just lets it happen, then the fact the constraints are written on the page means nothing. Now, I can certainly understand that having the constraints written on the page might help some people feel more comfortable in speaking up. But that's a completely separate issue. It's irrelevant to those who are comfortable speaking up anyway, and there are other ways of helping people feel comfortable in speaking up (such as, simply being straightforward, letting people know their opinion is important, and asking them for it).

If the group decides that the GM is relatively unconstrained and can make judgement calls with an eye towards a world that feels naturalistic and plausible, then the ways in which the GM is prevented from running rampant come down to, first, the GM's own honesty and willingness to do what they have agreed to do and, secondly, the ability of the rest of the group to call out the GM if they don't feel they are doing what the promised. Specific expectations of restraint might include things like the GM being expected to make rulings in a consistent manner, to honour the agreed tone and style of play, to ensure that the players have sufficient information to make informed decisions with the same degree of reliability as their characters etc... I'm not going to try and state a set of specific, universal constraints, because they will vary from group to group (and, within the same group, potentially from game to game).

In any case, no special rules or mechanics are required to enforce these constraints; they are enforced by the players speaking up if they feel they are not being met. This is the exact same way (and the only way) I would expect any constraints to be enforced if a Burning Wheel GM is not adhering to the agreed constraints of that game.

There is no need for some outside force or framework that is able to measure the GMs adherence, all that is required is the players' own understanding of their satisfaction with the GM in meeting the agreed expectations. If the players feel they "have sufficient information to make informed decisions with the same degree of reliability as their characters" then the GM is meeting their obligations in that area for all practical purposes. Quibbling over "what if the GM is secretly conning the players" and other similar arguments I've heard are meaningless to me. Such a situation most likely indicates GM operating in bad faith and, in any case, if the output is indistinguishable to the players, I really can't see that it matters. We're talking about an obscure edge case that has barely any (or possibly absolutely no) impact on play, so don't understand why some people seem so focused on it.

So, in summary, what constrains a GM who is given vague and wide-ranging powers by the group? Their own self respect and the absolute ability of the rest of the group to withdraw the granted powers at any time, for any reason.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

Good communication is never outdated. It’s the foundation upon which everything else is built when it comes to small group interactions.


If communication is presented in the form of game rules, then it will be treated like game rules, regardless of intent, whether that’s 100 years ago, 10 years ago, or today. That’s not a matter of the age of the design but of how players interpret the structure of rules.


That may be a strength of Dungeon World as a game system, but it’s not really relevant to my point. If the guidance on managing a campaign is given as advice or principles, that avoids the issue I raised. But if it’s embedded as rules text, then it risks being interpreted as binding mechanics, regardless of how general or flexible they are.

it isn't about 'good communications', your assertion was that using game mechanics was to 'communicate how a campaign works', and I am saying this is simply not true of Dungeon World (or PbtA in general, though it is a broad category of games). The rules, such as they are, are very specific, AND very general/universal. I would consider the principles and GM moves/techniques as 'rules', but they're not rigidly prescriptive, more supportive. I think they're stronger than the sort of advice you give on Living World, but some of it is pretty close, and other parts might be closer to things like charts and tables, or at least the 'how to' of making them. It certainly isn't a very limiting kind of system. Honestly, if you WANT to play DW, you are going to want to play pretty much like it says. It works MUCH better, phenomenally well, in that case.

 

[Thomas Shey]

The four players currently in my game cover an extreme range: one knows the rules as well if not better than I do (at least I hope so, given that he and I co-wrote most of them!), one knows them quite well, one knows the rules pertaining to character and general run of play and that's it, and one knows next to nothing.

I've got two players who, as far as I know, have never GMed; one of them has been playing possibly longer than I have. She still takes the time to learn the rules, at least any that apply to a character she's playing. I don't consider it an unreasonable ask.

Also, I'd hesitate to "train them out of" advocating for themselves and-or their characters.

That's because you've indicated you find it okay for players to be focused on only their own play and nobody else's. I, on the other hand, consider that pernicious; in a group cooperative game, it shouldn't be all about you, and yeah, I think people who are all about them should be trained out of it; if you want to only care about what you're doing, go play a computer game or find a GM who'll run solo for you.

 

[Thomas Shey]

Yea, pretty much every player at my table will advocate against themselves if they feel that’s the proper ruling. Heck, one time a player argued for a ruling that officially killed off his character.

It does help that most of my players have taken their turn as GM, so we all think about rules with our GM hat on even as players.

That's generally the case with most of mine too, and this isn't the only group I've had that did that. We boggled a GM many years ago when he was running a guest session in a Champions game and we not only pointed out he was running a mechanic too generously for one player (and that player was one of the ones who pointed it out), but actively argued against him doing that.

Apparently the concept of "keeping your powder dry" is a mystery to some people.

 

[hawkeyefan]

But if you can take rules from one game and apply to another (which makes sense) then why say that GMs should start with other games? Because that's what I was asking about. I mean, there's a ton of advice out there. The advice in the 2024 DMG is pretty good, there are a ton of videos and blogs which is great. I don't see a reason I need to pay for, learn and play a game. At the same time I think every GM needs to learn what works for them and you only learn that from doing.

I don’t think it makes sense to just take a rule from one game and add it to another. But I think we can look at different types of rules or processes and discuss what may or may not be best for people learning how to GM.

But again, I think the more important thing to do is to look at processes and how the game is handled. Especially as it pertains to the idea of a game being player focused.

You’re right there’s a ton of advice out there, and most of it is rubbish. Perhaps the 2024 DMG is better than the 2014, I haven’t read it yet… but the 2014 was pretty minimal in what advice it had to offer, and then ever more so in what portion of that was useful.

There are plenty of RPG books that offer clear guidance and advice, along with principles of GMing and playing that really make it clear what the game is trying to do, and how to achieve that.

 

[hawkeyefan]

I have never questioned your experience. I don'y think our disagreement is due to you not playing them. I think you and I have had veery different experiences with trad play and you bring a perspective that is totally different from mine.

Why would you expect our experiences to be so different? I imagine many of them, at least, are similar.

You mention Feast of Goblyns a good amount, and although I don’t recall ever playing or running that, I played and/or ran plenty of Ravenloft adventures. I played a ton of D&D in the 2e era, with pretty much all the settings TSR put out.

I’ve crafted worlds and settings of my own, too, as I expect many GMs did, especially when they were younger and had tons of time to do so.

Where I might disagree is you see the difference as coming from a 'willingness' to examine play and your own GMing. I don't think I am unwilling to examine play or my own GMing. While I don't claim to be the greatest by any stretch, I think one way I got better was to intentionally examining what was going on when a game was clearly failing (kind of like how a stand up comedian who is bombing learns from the experience). I am not unwilling or afraid to examine, I just have a different mindset from you when it comes to how I do that.

I’ve not said anything about your willingness or ability to examine your play. All I said was that my conclusions are drawn from examining my own play and GMing. Now, if we do indeed have some radically different experience, then maybe that’s the reason for the differing views (though I don’t even think they differ so much as we label them differently).

 

[Bedrockgames]

Why would you expect our experiences to be so different? I imagine many of them, at least, are similar.

You mention Feast of Goblyns a good amount, and although I don’t recall ever playing or running that, I played and/or ran plenty of Ravenloft adventures. I played a ton of D&D in the 2e era, with pretty much all the settings TSR put out.

I’ve crafted worlds and settings of my own, too, as I expect many GMs did, especially when they were younger and had tons of time to do so.

I just mean we are two different people, so even if we both played the same game, we probably had different reactions to what was going on. Clearly we are talking about the same games and systems, but our descriptions of what they mean in terms of agency and being GM versus Player driven are different.

 

[pemerton]

The primary and most important constraint is the same one that applies in every game -- the agreement of the group as a whole to distribute power and authority in a particular way.

<snip>

Any specific, more precise constraints on the GM, then, are ones that the group as a whole agrees should be there and is willing to enforce.

<snip>

If the group decides that the GM is relatively unconstrained and can make judgement calls with an eye towards a world that feels naturalistic and plausible, then the ways in which the GM is prevented from running rampant come down to, first, the GM's own honesty and willingness to do what they have agreed to do and, secondly, the ability of the rest of the group to call out the GM if they don't feel they are doing what the promised.

Yes, I was more interested in what what you think the particular way is that works well for your favoured sandboxing.

Specific expectations of restraint might include things like the GM being expected to make rulings in a consistent manner, to honour the agreed tone and style of play, to ensure that the players have sufficient information to make informed decisions with the same degree of reliability as their characters etc... I'm not going to try and state a set of specific, universal constraints, because they will vary from group to group (and, within the same group, potentially from game to game).

I appreciate that there is variation across tables, from time to time etc. But I would be interested in a bit more detail. Especially detail that helps distinguish your favoured sandboxing from some of the other approaches that have been discussed in this thread.

I wouldn't see consistent rulings, or honouring agreed tone and style, as fitting in that category - these seem like fairly generic desiderata in GMing. But the one about information might be so, especially if it also contains an implied negative element not to provide certain sorts of information based on in-fiction considerations.

I understand that Burning Wheel has a set of very clear and unambiguous rules about what the GM can and can't (or should and should not) do. If the group agrees to work within that framework, then they do. If the group doesn't agree to abide by these official, default Burning Wheel constraints, or they do agree but then the GM ignores them and the group just lets it happen, then the fact the constraints are written on the page means nothing. Now, I can certainly understand that having the constraints written on the page might help some people feel more comfortable in speaking up. But that's a completely separate issue.

The reason I follow the BW rules and principles is not because they have any special power over me. It's like any other recipe or set of instructions - I find that, when followed, what results is worthwhile.

 

[robertsconley]

This thread has gone in more circles than a spirograph.

Square that and take the integral and we may yet obtain true number of spirals.