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

[Faolyn]

Is it, though?

Is it?

Because this (as has been the case so many times in this thread) ignores the possibility of the invisible railroad.

Why do you assume an invisible railroad is a given? Why is it so hard to accept that GMs won’t just go with the flow?

 

[AlViking]

Why do you assume an invisible railroad is a given? Why is it so hard to accept that GMs won’t just go with the flow?

Apparently because GMs are power hungry control freaks who can't ever be trusted or questioned. It's not the world I live in, or at the very least it doesn't resemble any experience I've had over decades of play but it's pretty obvious where @EzekielRaiden stand on this. It's an invisible railroad because we, as GMs, build the world and everything revolves around us. No matter how often we explain that it does not.

 

[Bedrockgames]

Separately, I don't think @Bedrockgames was using jargon so much as colloquial usage.

Yes, lost track of the discussion a bit, but if this is in reference to my use of storyteller, I meant it rather colloquially, the way people talk about modules and games developed in the 90s. GM as storyteller. And like I have said I don't even have any particular issue with it. I realize some people are there for storytelling that is GM led and that is totally fine (and when I have gone back to those old modules, they capture a sense of atmosphere you really won't see often in a sandbox). But I feel like the promise of GM as storyteller is one of the big things that drives both sides of this debate. When I look at a lot of stuff that came out of the forge, it appears to be a response to what they perceive as failures of that promise and its impact on agency, whereas sandbox play almost sees the promise itself as the problem (which is one reason why I think it is so averse to the idea of story). I am glossing over a lot here, but I do think there is merit to this idea that we are reacting to concerns about railroads and the players just being there to experience the GMs story. Those both seem to be things we are actively seeking to avoid

 

[hawkeyefan]

This is a clever rhetorical maneuver, structured similarly to a loaded question. It’s phrased so that anyone who disagrees risks appearing as though they don’t respect player rolls, which is clearly not the case for all RPGs. And if you do agree, it sets the stage for a follow-up that implies you've just conceded a larger point about GM constraints. This isn’t a neutral observation, it’s a framing tactic meant to position the debate on Hawkeyefan's ground.

What’s actually being referenced here are mechanical constraints such as those found in fiction-first or player-first systems like Powered by the Apocalypse. In those systems, when the fictional situation matches the trigger for a move, the move is automatically invoked and resolved. The referee (or MC) doesn't have the discretion over whether the move is invoked And once the move is invoked the roll as made and the result adjudicated per the description of the move. For example:

View attachment 406605

But this kind of mechanical constraint is not germane to the broader debate around GM constraints that been going on in recent posts. The example offered is a result of the designer deciding that the system will be made using a player-first/fiction-first approach.



Yes, I remain unsure, because the example you provided does not meaningfully engage with the discussion that has been going on with GM constraints. We already discussed the relevance and implications of designing systems and campaigns around referee-first and player-first approaches.

It’s nothing like what you describe, Rob. I’m not trying to trick anyone. In every RPG, the GM operates with some form of constraint. Different games use different constraints, but each game has them. They’re what defines the role of the GM and the authority of the GM.

You can disagree with that if you like, though I’m not sure why you would.

In the sense that we are following the rules of the game, everyone is constrained by those basic rules except when the GM isn't. It's pretty common in D&D for some DMs to ignore the third crit in a row that will kill a PC or maybe drop the damage that the monster does. While I don't do that I do adjust monster stats on a regular basis, sometimes at the time of the game because I choose not to use a debilitating unfun power I had missed in prep. I don't feel constrained to use monsters as written.

But the constraints I just mentioned are not the type of constraint anyone else has been discussing. It's all been about changing the roles so that players have more influence than what their character says and does. I don't consider following the rules that define how combat is resolved a constraint in the ways others have been defining constraints.

I was answering “why should we place constraints on the GM?”

The willingness of some DMs to ignore such constraints wasn’t really something I was commenting on. Though it does highlight the reason we have them.

 

[AlViking]

It’s nothing like what you describe, Rob. I’m not trying to trick anyone. In every RPG, the GM operates with some form of constraint. Different games use different constraints, but each game has them. They’re what defines the role of the GM and the authority of the GM.

You can disagree with that if you like, though I’m not sure why you would.



I was answering “why should we place constraints on the GM?”

The willingness of some DMs to ignore such constraints wasn’t really something I was commenting on. Though it does highlight the reason we have them.

I just read "constraints on GMs are essential" and similar as more than follow basic combat rules we've agreed upon because that level of rules adherence is just kind of given.

 

[Micah Sweet]

You think that honoring rolls should just be a suggestion?

Okay, I guess.

As if that was the only hard rule restricting GM behavior I could possibly be talking about. That is not a good faith comment.

 

[Faolyn]

As if that was the only hard rule restricting GM behavior I could possibly be talking about. That is not a good faith comment.

So what hard GM-restricting rules do you dislike?

 

[Micah Sweet]

Of course it is, because...that's literally the situation going on here.

"Abide by the player's rolls" IS a GM restriction. Period. End of discussion. If that's okay, then you cannot say that GM restrictions are inherently bad and untrustworthy. You must actually explain WHY they are bad and untrustworthy, in a given case. You can't just write them all off with a single blithe argument, as has been done in this thread.


No. The explicit argument was that ANY GM constraints are bad, period.


Sure they do. Just as with any TTRPG, the referee/MC/GM/whatever needs to agree that the fictional situation DOES match the trigger.

A player saying, "I look around" doesn't trigger Discern Realities. They have failed to meet the trigger condition. I fully agree that once it is established that that is the fictional context, the move fires, because "if you do it, you do it" and "you have to do it, to do it" combined make a biconditional. The former is the "if" part, the latter is the "only if" part: if the trigger condition is the state of the fiction, then the move definitely fires; and the move fires at no other time, only if the condition is met. But the text--explicitly and repeatedly--supports the GM asking for more input or expecting more than token action.

And, to turn your own words against you: This is a clever rhetorical maneuver. You have shorn off the context which makes clear that the GM is in fact part of the process of determining what the fictional situation is, and thus made it sound as though the PbtA GM is merely the slave of the players, bullied by their shouted declarations, unable to act in any way except to robotically execute moves.


Of course it is germane to it--because people have declared that ALL GM constraints, regardless of context, are unacceptable. But we know, for certain, without doubt whatsoever, that some GM constraints are accepted, even by those claiming that they're always bad. In other words, in order to reject some specific constraint or particular class of constraints, you cannot simply point out that they're constraints and call it a day. We must have an explanation for why this constraint, or class of constraints, is unacceptable.

I say "class of constraints" because I'm obviously not going to expect someone to argue against Discern Realities, and then separately against Spout Lore, and then separately against--you get the picture. I'm not saying every single possible restraint is a totally unique case that must be argued individually. What I am saying is that dismissing it SOLELY because it is a constraint isn't a valid argument. You need to explain what, about a given instance or category, is an actual problem, since some restrictions are acceptable and others are not.

And, just in case someone is feeling like ascribing an extremist position again despite complaining about others extremizing their own viewpoints: I am also NOT saying that all possible restrictions are presumptively good, either. I explicitly said so upthread when talking about limitations and creativity. Good restrictions can (but do not always) lead to creative solutions or workarounds. Bad restrictions simply hogtie you with no benefit, like my trivially-bad example of "DMing while blindfolded", or other trivally bad things like "only being able to adjudicate rulings while balanced on one foot and playing Old Lang Syne on a piano". Others may be bad for nontrivial reasons, which require more subtle analysis; for example, I would consider it a bad constraint for the game to require the DM to lie to the players, as in, they're explicitly not allowed to tell the truth to the players in a particular situation (say they're interacting with an illusion or something), regardless of what the players might do or not do. That's not of the same "trivially obviously bad" category, but I think we can agree that that kind of restriction would be detrimental either all the time, or so overwhelmingly so that it would not be worth the tiny chance of occasionally producing something beneficial.


As I have argued, it absolutely does meaningfully engage with that discussion, because it stakes out one end of the spectrum: We all agree that this is a good constraint, right? And it would seem you do.

And I, here and elsewhere, have argued that some constraints, we all agree are bad constraints.

Hence, if you're going to say that a particular constraint or class thereof is bad, you have to actually defend it. You can't just call out that it's a constraint and thus presumptively bad.

The person whose rhetoric you are defending explicitly stated, "constraints are good". Exact words. Are you willing to disagree with that statement?

 

[Micah Sweet]

....

Max.

YOU WROTE THAT SETTING.

Every possible thing which you could decide based on that setting COMES FROM WHAT YOU WROTE.

For God's sake, how can you argue something like this???


You have to actually prove that. You don't get to just assert "nah, that never happens bruh."

Sure you can. And you get to disagree.

 

[Micah Sweet]

I write my own adventures and I never, ever predict what the players will do. Hell, I don't even bother to think of possible solutions to the obstacles they encounter. I've found that either they will come up with a solution I think of, or come up with one that I didn't, and the latter used to happen a lot. Rarely will the players be unable to come up with something.

My old 1e DMs used to do this. They'd generate a tough situation with no solution in mind, just to see how we'd handle it. It was a lot of fun, even if we didn't always find a way through.